SHASHIKANT v. HARESH
Filed 7/10/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| SHASHIKANT JOGANI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HARESH JOGANI et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B181246 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC290553) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dunn, Judge. Reversed.
Horvitz & Levy, Frederic D. Cohen, Andrea M. Gauthier; Krane & Smith and Samuel Krane for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Scott D. Bertzyk and Karin L. Bohmholdt for Defendants and Respondents.
___________________________________________
Story Continue from Part I …………..
Of course, there are judgment debtor proceedings, like the ones involved here, where attorneys conduct the examinations and where neither the court nor a referee evaluates the testimony. There are also depositions where the court gets involved by, for example, issuing a protective order, ruling on objections, or appointing a referee to supervise the taking of testimony. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2025.420, 2025.480, 639, subd. (a)(5); Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2006) ¶¶ 8:742 to 8:744, p. 8E-122 (rev. #1, 2006).)
Nevertheless, it does not follow that, as defendants argue, judicial estoppel cases involving deposition testimony are irrelevant. As one federal court explained with respect to statements made at a deposition in a prior action: â€
