Sikh Gurdwara-San Jose v. Khalsa CA6

Filed 2/26/16 Sikh Gurdwara-San Jose v. Khalsa CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

SIKH GURDWARA-SAN JOSE, No. H040870 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 109CV151510)

v.

HARJOT SINGH KHALSA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Sikh Gurdwara-San Jose, a nonprofit religious corporation (the Temple), filed a libel suit in September 2009 against Amritsar Publication and Media Group, LLC (the Newspaper). The Temple alleged that the Newspaper published seven defamatory articles between September and October of 2008. These articles allegedly accused the Temple’s leadership of violations of the Temple’s bylaws, and of mismanagement of an ongoing Temple construction project. The complaint was amended to add four individual defendants, claiming there was a unity of interest and ownership between them and the Newspaper that, in the interests of justice, required that the four individuals be held responsible for the alleged libel. The case proceeded to trial in January 2014 against only one defendant, Harjot Singh Khalsa (Khalsa). In a bifurcated trial, the court rejected the Temple’s alter ego claim against Khalsa. The court filed a statement of decision confirming its finding, effectively concluding the case.

In this appeal, the Temple asserts the trial court erred by refusing to admit the deposition testimony of a nonparty, Satnam Singh Khalsa (Satnam),1 and that this error was prejudicial. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Satnam’s deposition testimony. Accordingly, we will affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 3, 2009, the Temple filed a complaint against the Newspaper, alleging a single cause of action for libel. The Temple alleged there were a series of five articles published by the Newspaper between September 3 and September 30, 2008, and that each was defamatory on its face in that it exposed the Temple “to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obliquy because [each] indicate[d] a lack of professional competence or integrity, corruption, and/or commission of criminal activity [sic].” The superior court’s docket shows a motion for leave to amend the complaint was filed December 19, 2011, and the court granted the motion by order filed April 25, 2012. The second amended complaint (Complaint) was filed on April 26, 2012. The Complaint named four individuals as Doe defendants: Khalsa, Jasjeet Singh, Daljit Singh Sra, and Jai Singh. The Complaint identified the five articles described in the original complaint, and added two articles published by the Newspaper in October 2008 as also being defamatory. The Temple alleged that Jasjeet Singh wrote four of the allegedly defamatory articles, Daljit Singh Sra wrote two of them, and that one or both wrote the seventh article. The Temple alleged further that each of the four individuals was an owner, shareholder, and member of the Newspaper, and that there was a sufficient unity of interest and ownership between the Newspaper and the four individuals such that the separate personalities of the entity and individuals no longer existed, warranting the