Slemaker

Introduction

This is a purported appeal from an order of the superior court imposing sanctions on counsel for improperly suspending the deposition of a witness. We hold that the order is not separately appealable and dismiss the appeal.

Factual and Procedural History

On January 15, 1988, plaintiffs C. M. Slemaker and Roberta Slemaker served notice by telecopy to defendants’ counsel of depositions of two witnesses. The depositions were both noticed for January 25, 1988. Defense counsel claimed that since Monday January 18 was a holiday (Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, birthday) he was unaware of the notice until January 19.

Mr. Zimmerman, representing defendants John Woolley and Joan Woolley, attempted to reschedule the depositions, claiming that one of the defendants wanted to be present but couldn’t do so on such short notice. Mr. Denis, counsel for plaintiffs, refused to reschedule the depositions but later *1379 cancelled the first of the two. Mr. Zimmerman appeared for the second one and immediately suspended it invoking Code of Civil Procedure section 2025, subdivision (n). 1 At this point the situation was overtaken by schoolyard protocol. Mr. Denis claims that Mr.…