Mason v. YD Window CA3

BACKGROUND

The facts of the underlying litigation are largely immaterial to this appeal. It suffices to say that during a March 2019 deposition in San Francisco that occurred in the

1 discovery phase of this civil action, a disagreement arose whether the deponent had an obligation to answer a question posed by Bracamontes. Defense counsel instructed the deponent not to answer the question. Bracamontes decided to suspend the deposition to seek the trial court’s resolution of the dispute despite defense counsel’s “suggest[ion] that [he] ask all of the questions that [he was] able to ask . . . before . . . suspend[ing] this deposition.” “If you don’t do that, we will ask for sanctions,” defense counsel said. “You know I traveled up here from Southern California.” Bracamontes replied: “I’m comfortable, if we have to suspend today, that I’m not going to be the one to get sanctioned, you and your client are. [¶] These are very foundational questions. This is an employment lawsuit. I’m asking [the deponent] what his job duties are.” In April 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel the deponent’s testimony and seeking monetary sanctions, arguing “[d]efense counsel had zero basis in…