Reply To Opposition To Motion To Tax CostsReplyCal. Super. - 4th Dist.July 20, 2015© 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © Scott Meininger, State Bar No. 280518 MICHAEL MAGUIRE & ASSOCIATES Employees of the Corporate Law Department ELECTRONICALLY FILED State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Eunsrer f California, 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900 Pe aunty of Orange Costa Mesa, CA 92626 ae E-Mail: cali.law-costa-mesa-clc.017023@ statefarm.com 08/14/2017 at 11:23:00 Ad (714) 435-7500 / Fax No.: (855) 396-4486 Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk Attorneys for defendant Arif Shakeel, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORANGE COUNTY CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER No: 30-2015-00799407 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO: JUDGE NATHAN SCOTT DEPARTMENT C12 Date Action Filed: July 20, 2015 Trial Date: March 6, 2017 Fariba Dai, an individual; Melody Mahmoudian, an individual Plaintiffs, V. Arif Shakeel, an individual; and DOES 1 to 25 inclusive Date: August 21, 2017 Time: 2:00 p.m. Dept: C12 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS; DECLARATION OF SCOTT E. MEININGER Defendant. - -1- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © Memorandum of Points and Authorities 1. Plaintiffs’ request for deposition costs are excessive and were not reasonably necessary A. The costs of videotaping depositions of witnesses who were available for trial were not reasonable necessary As part of their claimed “deposition costs,” plaintiffs submitted invoices for video recording the depositions of Dennis Malkasian in the amount of $746.25 and defendant Arif Shakeel in the amount of $638.75. Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 (a)(3)(A) allows costs for “[tlaking, video recording, and transcribing necessary depositions.” However, that section is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(2), which states: “Allowable costs shall be reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient or beneficial to its preparation.” Here, the videotaping of the depositions of Dr. Malkasian and defendant Arif Shakeel was not reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation because plaintiff had the ability to compel both of these California-based witnesses to testify at trial if defense counsel did not call them. First, Dr. Malkasian resides in California and plaintiff easily could have served a subpoena on him to appear and testify at trial. Second, as Mr. Shakeel was a defendant in this case, plaintiff had the ability to serve Mr. Shakeel with a notice to appear at trial pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987. Indeed, both Dr. Malkasian and Mr. Shakeel were present at trial. Thus, these costs were not “reasonably necessary” as claimed by plaintiff. i 2- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © B. The non-appearance fee for defendant's deposition was not “reasonably necessary” Plaintiff also seeks a non-appearance fee of $337.50 for a deposition of defendant that was never noticed to take place on the day that the affidavit of non- appearance was taken. (Declaration of Scott E. Meininger, para. 2.) The parties experienced difficulties in coming up with a date for defendant's deposition that would work for all parties and their counsel. However, the non- appearance fee that plaintiff seeks to recover was not reasonably or necessarily incurred in this case because: e Plaintiff cancelled the first two sessions of defendant's deposition; e Defendant's deposition was never noticed to take place on February 13, 2017, the date when the non-appearance was taken; and, e Plaintiff's counsel was advised on February 10, 2017, that defendant was not available for his deposition on February 13, 2017, and defendant offered other alternative dates for his deposition. (See exhibits A-C.) For each of these reasons, plaintiff's deposition costs should be taxed by a minimum of $1,722.50, which represents the video and non-appearance costs discussed above. I -3- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © 2. The meals, lodging, and parking expenses of plaintiffs’ local counsel are not recoverable Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to all of their attorney's travel expenses incurred at the time of trial, including expenses for meals, hotel lodging, and parking, because these costs purportedly were “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of this case. Plaintiff cites to no authority providing that travel expenses for trial are allowable as a matter of right. Further, the exhibits and declaration submitted by plaintiff's counsel shows that these costs were “merely convenient or beneficial” to plaintiff's counsel and that they were in no way necessary, let alone reasonably necessary to the conduct of this litigation as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(c)(2). Plaintiffs’ counsel admits that his office is located in Beverly Hills, California. This means that his office is local and only about 42 miles from the courthouse. Plaintiffs’ counsel was not required to travel from out of state for trial or even from a distant location within the state. Instead, as plaintiffs’ counsel admits, staying in a hotel near the courthouse gave him the convenience and benefit of avoiding traffic. Further, plaintiffs’ counsel was required to eat meals during trial regardless of the fact that he was in trial. While plaintiffs cite to Gorman v. Taassjara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4™ 44, at 73 and Howard v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 498, at 541, as standing for the proposition that out-of-town meal expenses are not prohibited as a matter of law, neither of these cases support plaintiffs” position here. First, both of those cases addressed travel expenses related to depositions and not trial. Second, plaintiffs’ counsel was not traveling from a far and distant location for trial, and was close enough that he could have avoided the expenses of “eating out” for every meal. -4- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © The meal expenses sought by plaintiffs’ counsel in this situation simply were not necessary to the litigation and the findings made in Ladas v. California S tate Auto. Assn. (1993) 19 Cal. App.4th 761, at 774-775, are applicable. In Ladas, the court stated that “meal expenses” cannot be “justified as ‘necessary to the conduct of litigation’ since attorneys have to eat, whether they are conducting litigation or not. At best, these expenses are ‘merely convenient or beneficial’ to preparation for litigation, the recovery of which is proscribed under subdivision (c).” (Id.) Finally, if the Legislature intended for attorneys to recover for their parking expenses each time they went to Court, this cost certainly would be one of those enumerated in the Code of Civil Procedure as an allowable cost. As stressed in the motion, the type of costs listed as recoverable under section 1033.5(a) are those directly related to the conduct of litigation, and, in particular, either 1) the actual gathering, preparation, and presentation of evidence, or 2) fees payable to the Court or vendors as required by statute. Parking fees simply do not fall into these categories. For these reasons, the Court should tax plaintiffs’ claim travel expenses of $6,935.48. 3. The costs of attending a voluntary mediation are not “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of the litigation Plaintiffs argue that pursuant to Gibson v. Bobroff (1996) 49 Cal.App.4t 1202, courts have the discretion to award mediation costs when a case is ordered to mediation by the court. Yet, in this case, the court did not order the parties to attend mediation, and instead, the parties voluntarily chose to attend a private mediation. The costs of this mediation were in no way “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of -5- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © this litigation, and instead, were merely “beneficial” to the parties to try to resolve this case short of trial. For these reasons, the Court should tax plaintiffs’ mediation costs in the amount of $2,865. 4. Plaintiffs offer no information as to the unknown persons served with subpoenas and why these costs were necessary As noted in defendant's moving papers, plaintiffs seek to recover $370 for service of subpoenas on witnesses that defense counsel is unaware of and that were never called to testify at trial. In the opposition, plaintiffs provide no indication of who these witnesses are, let alone why service of subpoenas on these individuals were “reasonably necessary” to the conduct of this litigation. In the absence of such a showing, the Court should tax plaintiffs’ service costs by $370. 5. Plaintiffs have failed to make any showing that the large sum for blowups was “reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact” Without any proof or support, plaintiffs maintain that they are entitled to the full sum of $2,815.48 for “models, blowups, and photocopies of exhibits.” Y et, both the Code of Civil Procedure and case law make clear that expenses for models, enlargements, photocopies, etc., are only recoverable if they are “reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13); see Cristler v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 72, at 90-91.) Thus, costs for exhibits not actually used at trial are not recoverable under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5(a)(13) because the exhibits are not “reasonably helpful to aid the trier of fact.” (Ladas v. California State Auto. Ass'n (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 761, -6- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © at 774; see Great Western Bank v. Converse Consultants, Inc. (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 609, at 615.) It was plaintiffs’ burden to show which costs were incurred for blowups and exhibits actually used at trial. Plaintiffs made no effort to make this showing, and are not entitled to the full costs that they seek for blowups and exhibits. Further, the case of Applegate v. St. Francis Lutheran Church (1994) 23 Cal. App 4 361 cited by plaintiffs is distinguishable. In that case, the plaintiff dismissed his case on the date of trial. The court ruled that it was in the trial court's discretion to award costs for copying exhibits because the defendants were forced to prepare for trial and had incurred those copying costs because plaintiff waited until the day of trial to dismiss his case. By contrast, this case actually went to trial, and plaintiffs made decisions about which exhibits or blowups to use. To the extent that plaintiffs did not use exhibits or blowups at trial, the costs of copying such exhibits were merely “beneficial” or “convenient” to plaintiffs, but did not reasonably aid the trier of fact and were not “necessary incurred.” For these reasons, plaintiffs’ costs for copying exhibits and blowups should be reduced to $815.48. I -7- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N H N N N N N N N N N RH RH RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB §§ 0 N N Oo U1 A W N HH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © 6. Conclusion Plaintiffs withdrew a number of their improper costs in their opposition to defendant's motion. Defendant requests that this Honorable Court further reduce plaintiffs’ costs for the reasons discussed above. DATED: August14, 2017 MICHAEL MAGUIRE & ASSOCIATES By: = - 1 © Scott Meininger Attorneys for defendant Arif Shakeel, -8- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N B= N N N N N N N N N RH RH R RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB 0 N N Oo U1 A W N BH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © Declaration of Scott Meininger in Support of Reply to Opposition to Motion to Tax Costs Scott Meininger declares: 1. | am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and a member of the firm Michael Maguire & Associates, attorneys for defendant Arif Shakeel. The following facts are within my personal knowledge and if called as a witness, | could and would competently testify as to them. 2. Plaintiff seeks a non-appearance fee of $337.50 for a deposition of defendant that was never noticed to take place on the day that the affidavit of non- appearance was taken. To provide the Court with the background regarding this purported “non-appearance” fee and why itis improper, | have attached a number of exhibits regarding the scheduling of defendant's deposition. 3. Attached as exhibit A is a true copy of a series of emails between me and plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the scheduling of defendant's deposition. 4. Attached as exhibit B is a true copy of a letter that | sent to plaintiffs’ counsel on February 9, 2017, regarding the scheduling of defendant's deposition. 5. Attached as exhibit C is a true copy of a second series of emails between me and plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the scheduling of defendant's deposition. I -9- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N H N N N N N N N N N RH RH RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB §§ 0 N N Oo U1 A W N HH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © | declare under penalty of perjury and under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed August 14, 2017, at Costa Mesa, California. C f \ / s : o oll Eh Kk, Scott Meininger -10- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS © 00 N N oo uu A W N H N N N N N N N N N RH RH RFR RB RB RB RB RB HB §§ 0 N N Oo U1 A W N HH O © 00 N N O O O1 1 Bo W N = © PROOF OF SERVICE (Business Practice to Entrust Deposit to Others California Code of Civil Procedure § 1013 and 1013a) (Dai v Shakeel) [, Nevine Shenouda, declare as follows: 1. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900, Costa Mesa, California 92626-1904, which is located in Orange County, the county where this mailing occurred. 2. On August 14, 2017, at my place of business at Costa Mesa, California, the document described as REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS was placed for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices for deposit in the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed to the persons listed below. In addition, on August 14, 2017, at my place of business at Costa Mesa, California, | faxed the document described as REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS to the person(s) at the fax number(s) listed below. Siamak Vaziri Vaziriz Law Group, APC 5757 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 670 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Fax Number: (310) 777-0373 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed August 14, 2017, at Costa Mesa, California. Mode Shevovste Nevine Shenouda -11- REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TAX COSTS EXHIBIT “A” Kathryn Saldana From: Siamak Vaziri Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona; Mark Giannamore; Joseph Miller Subject: RE: Dai - Deposition of Arif Shakeel Neither of those dates work for us. We need more dates. Thx. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P -310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3 @statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:09 AM To: Siamak Vaziri Cc: John Orona ; Mark Giannamore ; Joseph Miller Subject: RE: Dai - Deposition of Arif Shakeel I need to know so that | can advise my client as to his deposition. Which date would you prefer? Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31,2017 11:23 AM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Mark Giannamore ; Joseph Miller Subject: RE: Dai - Deposition of Arif Shakeel Scott - if that’s accurate - | didn’t know and my apologies. John will get back to you on dates. Thx. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F - 310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:22 AM To: Siamak Vaziri Cc: John Orona ; Mark Giannamore ; Joseph Miller Subject: RE: Dai - Deposition of Arif Shakeel Siamak, | remind you that my client and | have been confirmed and ready to appear twice before for a deposition, only to have it taken off calendar the day before by your office. So it has not been me that has delayed this deposition. My client has the 13" and 15" of February available. 12 o’clock. Let me know which date you prefer. Thank you. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:48 PM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Mark Giannamore ; Joseph Miller Subject: RE: Dai - Deposition of Arif Shakeel Scott - we have been trying to take this deposition for a little while now. We want to depose your guy. We don’t have a lot of time before the mediation. Please get us dates immediately. Thx. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 10:46 AM To: Stefano Formica ; Siamak Vaziri Subject: Dai - Deposition of Arif Shakeel Guys, My client is not available for his deposition tomorrow, he has a last minute conflict. | will have alternative dates to you by early next week. Thank you. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site EXHIBIT “B” Leah Berry Anson Bui Laura L. Davidson Juan C. Delgado DawnMarie Favata Robert P. Fox Brian Y. Fujita Robert L. Galey Don W. Gilbert David M. Gray MICHAEL MAGUIRE & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1904 Kelley J. Gural Kevin R. Jolly Jennifer Leeper Michael P. Maguire C. David Maze Scott E. Meininger Kathryn Saldana James T. Shott Steven D. Trotter Paul Kevin Wood Joshua Yin Telephone: (714) 435-7500 Facsimile: (855) 396-4486 February 9, 2017 Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Law Offices of Siamak Vaziri 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 BY US MAIL AND FAX RE: Dai v Shakeel Date of Loss: July 30, 2013 Client: Arif Shakeel Our File No.: 16C0ST02437 Dear Mr. Vaziri: This is in regards to the deposition of my client, defendant Arif Shakeel. As you are aware, you had noticed his deposition for) anuary 27, 2017. | informed you that he was not available that day and gave you two additional days of February 13% and 15% for his availability. You have informed me that neither of those days work. In the spirit of discovery and civility | offer my client as available on February 23, 2017 at 11 AM in your office. | will point out that we had originally agreed on the mutual date of August 24, 2016 as the date for my client's deposition. We were ready to produce him on that day when your office cancelled on the morning of the deposition. We then agreed on the mutual date of September 20, 2016 as the date for Mr. Shakeel's deposition. Your office canceled on the morning of the deposition again. Y ou then waited to unilaterally notice his deposition shortly before trial on January 27, 2017. | am trying to be as accommodating as possible, but your office practices are making it extremely difficult. Siamak Vaziri Esq. Re: Daiv Shakeel February 9, 2017 Page 2 Please let me know as soon as possible if you are agreeable to February 23, 2017. Mr. Shakeel is a busy man and making time in his schedule to travel to Beverly Hills from South Orange County, on a weekday, to give a deposition (an all-day affair) is difficult to fit into his schedule. Sincerely, MICHAEL MAGUIRE &ASSOCIATES Be / LY . O Scott Meininger SEM/lg EXHIBIT “C” Kathryn Saldana From: Siamak Vaziri Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 3:05 PM To: Scott Meininger Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Too much back and forth. We will take a non-appearance on Monday and let the court decide. Thank you, Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3 @statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:43 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Mr. Vaziri, | wrote you a letter yesterday. Please reference it. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:40 PM To: Scott Meininger Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Scott - this is tiring. We cleared our Monday to take this depo per your instruction yesterday. Tell your client to be at our office - ill work on the times to accommodate. When is a good time for him? Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P- 310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:36 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Mr. Vaziri, You have not noticed my client for a deposition on Monday-I do not know how you are going to take his non- appearance. | genuinely want to sort this out, please advise if the 23" works for you. Mr. Shakeel is available that day. We will go to your office. | can also see if the 15% still works for him. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:32 PM To: Scott Meininger Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Scott - advise your client as you deem fit. If he isn’t here on Monday - we will take a non-appearance. Thank you Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:31 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Mr. Vaziri, | am disappointed that we were not able to work out a day. Shall | advise my client that he will not be deposed on the 237 So you are clear, Mr. Shakeel has other engagements on Monday that traffic conditions would prevent him from being at if he is deposed in Beverly Hills. Remember, he is coming from South Orange County. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:26 PM To: Scott Meininger Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel You can explain to the court that he didn’t show for us deposition because of traffic conditions. You have already confirmed his availability and | agreed to be flexible to time - so if your client doesn’t show up - we will take a non- appearance. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. 3 From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:23 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Mr. Vaziri, My client cannot make a deposition in your office, in Beverly Hills, on Monday. Certainly, you understand Southern California traffic conditions. My client had the date available, but YOU declined the date. | am trying everything | can to accommodate you and your late requests to take my client’s deposition. | reference my earlier correspondence regarding his availability. Thank you. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:17 PM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel If your client is available to be deposed in your office he is available to be deposed in our office. He doesn’t get preferential treatment. | don’t want to seek court intervention on this. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P- 310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:16 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Mr. Vaziri, My client CANNOT make it on Monday, February 13 to go to Los Angeles and be deposed. He did have it available. But after YOU told me that you could not make that date work, he has scheduled other business matters. You are now advising me on Friday that you want to take his deposition on Monday? That is not fair (or per code). My client can make it on February 23, in your office. Or, in the morning in my office on February 13. Thank you. Thank you. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:10 PM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Yesterday you said he was available on the 13" and 15" and you were going to check on the 14" and get back to me. You didn’t and in an effort to accommodate we re-arranged our calendar on the 13". We will take his depo and it will be in our office as per code. We will further accommodate for time. When would you like to start? We don’t anticipate it being a very long deposition. Thx. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:07 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Mr. Vaziri, | communicated to you February 13" and the 15" as dates of availability on January 31, 2017. | then had to follow up on February 3 to see if that worked for you because you did not get back to me. You advised me that neither of those dates worked for you. | advised my client of such and he went on with his life. You have no advised me on Friday, February 10, that you want to take my client’s deposition on Monday, despite telling me on February 3 that it did not work for. Despite your short notice, | am advised that my client has time to be deposed in my office on February 13. Please advise so that we can reserve a room. Thank you. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:03 PM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Im not waiting until the 23 to take your guys depo. Please produce him on Monday morning. We cleared our date to work with his schedule; because that’s a date your guy chose. We are all busy, especially my clients who wasted a full day yesterday. Especially, Melody who missed class from UCSD and drove 2 hours to be there yesterday. We look forward to seeing you Monday. Thx. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F - 310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:49 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel | am out of the office in a deposition. | cannot speak. Please feel free to email, however. Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:46 PM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Call me to discuss. Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P -310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F - 310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail. From: Scott Meininger [mailto:scott.meininger.tez3@statefarm.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:45 PM To: Siamak Vaziri Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: RE: Dai v. Shakeel Siamak, | wrote you this letter and faxed it to you last night. My client is not available Monday to go to Beverly Hills. | can see if he is available to have his deposition taken here, in my office. Would you like me to check? Or would you like the 237? Scott E. Meininger Attorney Michael Maguire & Associates Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 611 Anton Blvd., Ste. 900 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 435-7503 Fax: (855) 396-4486 My Site From: Siamak Vaziri [mailto:svaziri@vazirilaw.com] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 11:14 AM To: Scott Meininger Cc: John Orona ; Jessica Orona Subject: Dai v. Shakeel Hey Scott: you were supposed to get back to me on regarding deposing your client on Tuesday the 14™. | never heard from you. We will accommodate your clients schedule and depose him on Monday the 13" at 10 am at your office. We will see you there. Ill have John email you the new notice. Thank you, Siamak Vaziri, Esq. Vaziri Law Group, A.P.C. 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 830 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 P-310-777-7540 T-877-777-7993 F-310-777-0373 The information contained in this electronic communication is private and confidential; it may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and may constitute work product. Its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it from your system without distributing or copying it and notify sender by reply e- mail.
