Christopher Ramirez vs. Clearview Home Improvements, Inc.

Reply to Opposition

Cal. Super. - 4th Dist.March 23, 2016

OO 0 NN a Un se W N = N O N O N N N O N N N N N m m e m e m e m e m E e e e e a 0 ~~ aA Wn Bs W N = O D O R N W Y R W N = OO AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC KASHIF HAQUE, State Bar No. 218672 CINDY PHAM, State Bar No. 286893 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 . Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 khaque@aegislawfirm.com cpham@aegislawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 0642017 at 03:05:00 PM Clerk of the Superior Court By & Clerk, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. CLEARVIEW HOME IMPROVEMENTS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO.: 30-2016-00842426-CU-OE-CJC Assigned for All Purposes to: The Honorable Sheila Fell Dept. C25 REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING DISSEMINATION OF THE VIDEOTAPED RECORD OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF [Reservation No. 72558362] Hearing Date: June 21, 2017 Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. Department: C25 Complaint Filed: = March 23, 2016 Trial Date: September 11, 2017 -1- PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Oo 0 NN NY nn BA W N N O N O N O N N N N N O N mm em es e m e a e d ee d © ~~ oO Wh bh W N R S L N N N B R E W ee OO Plaintiff Christopher Ramirez (“Plaintiff”) submits this reply to Defendant Clearview Home Improvements, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. LEGAL ARGUMENT Defendant argues in its Opposition that Plaintiff's Motion fails to provide adequate support for the extraordinary relief sought. However, the scope of the protective order being sought by Plaintiff is extremely limited". What Plaintiff is requesting by way of his Motion is not to enjoin Defendant’s counsel from showing the video of Plaintiffs deposition to others (e.g., witnesses) but simply to prevent the dissemination or reproduction of physical copies of the videotape which, as argued by Plaintiff, will open the door to unnecessary embarrassment, humiliation and intimidation against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s fear is underlined by his working experience at Defendant as well as his knowledge of the criminal background of several individuals who hold managerial positions within the company? There is no conceivable reason why Defendant’s counsel should feel compelled to disseminate physical copies of the video other than purposes of subjecting Plaintiff to the possibility of harassment and humiliation. Defendant argues that the videotape is “a great indicator of credibility” and “a useful tool for witnesses to see and evaluate...” Again, Plaintiff is not seeking to prevent such witnesses from being able to view the videotape; nor is Plaintiff seeking to prevent the videotape from being shown at trial; Plaintiff is only asking that the videotape not be reproduced and disseminated amongst employees within the company in order to prevent the likelihood of the video being circulated on the internet or by other means. In sum, Defendant will not be prejudiced in any way by the granting of Plaintiffs requested protective order. 1 Section 2025.420(b) includes a non-exhaustive list of several "protections" that may form the basis of a protective order. It states that a "protective order may-include.... [the direction that] the deposition be sealed and thereafter opened only on order of the court." See CCP § 2025.420(b)(15). Here, Plaintiff is asking for a similar and much less drastic protection-that only the deposition videotape (and not the deposition transcript) be kept in the custody of counsel in this case and not disseminated. 2 The details of which Plaintiff will gladly provide to the Court in chambers. 2 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER OO 0 NN NN nn B W N O N N N NN m m e k e m e m e e e e Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion in its entirety. Dated: June 14, 2017 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC By udu (AQUA. Kashif Haque Cindy Pham Attorneys for Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ g- PLAINTIFE’S REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER O 0 0 N N Wn B A W ) ee N N N N D N N N O N = m ee e m e m e m e m e d e m ee co ~~ O N Ln BR W N = DO Y e N N R W R S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; am employed with Aegis Law Firm PC and my business address is 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. On June 14, 2017, I served the foregoing document entitled: e PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING DISSEMINATION OF THE VIDEOTAPED RECORD OF DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing [_] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: BERGER | HARRISON, APC Benjamin Berger, Esa. bb@bergerharrison.com Daniel A. Harrison. Esa. dh@bergerharrison.com Attorneys for Defendant: Clearview Home Improvements, Inc. [J] (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) [1] (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(c); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(¢).) 4 (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) to be served via electronic transmission to the addressee(s) listed above on the date below. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(6); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(E); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(3).) [] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered the foregoing document by hand delivery to the addressed named above. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1011; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 3(b)(2)(A).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 14, 2017, at Irvine, California. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE