[ad_1]
Dwelling
Every day Information
Consumer escapes sanction for lawyer’s refusal…
Trials & Litigation
Consumer escapes sanction for lawyer’s refusal to seem on digicam in Zoom deposition
January 25, 2024, 12:01 pm CST
A consumer received’t must pay a sanction of almost $10,000 for his lawyer’s refusal to seem on digicam throughout a distant deposition, a California appeals courtroom dominated Tuesday. (Picture from Shutterstock)
A consumer received’t must pay a sanction of almost $10,000 for his lawyer’s refusal to seem on digicam throughout a distant deposition, a California appeals courtroom dominated Tuesday.
In an unpublished opinion, the California Courtroom of Attraction’s Second Appellate District dominated that the consumer doesn’t must pay as a result of a movement to compel the legal professional’s on-camera look had been withdrawn.
Law360 and the Metropolitan Information-Enterprise coated the Jan. 23 opinion.
The lawyer, Jeffrey Katofsky, represented a person alleged to be taking sports activities bets. The consumer was subpoenaed by a spouse in divorce proceedings who wished his testimony about 1000’s of {dollars} in sports activities bets mentioned to be positioned by her husband, principally within the final 5 years of their marriage.
The spouse is Shawn Agnone, and her husband, Frank Charles Agnone II, is an award-winning Hollywood producer, in line with the Metropolitan Information-Enterprise.
The opinion described what occurred on the deposition.
Katofsky was in the identical room as his consumer through the deposition. The consumer appeared on digicam, however Katofsky refused to activate his webcam. The lawyer for Shawn Agnone complained that he wouldn’t have the ability to see whether or not Katofsky was “making any visible indicators” or “in any other case teaching” his consumer.
Katofsky referenced the subpoena discover, which required Katofsky and his consumer to take part in a Zoom deposition “utilizing their very own pc geared up with a webcam,and with a steady landline/wired ethernet connection to the web.”
Katofsky instructed the opposing lawyer that his pc was geared up with a webcam, “so we complied together with your discover,” in line with the opinion.
The lawyer for Shawn Agnone ended the deposition. He filed a movement to compel the looks of Katofsky’s consumer in accordance with the phrases of the deposition discover and sought sanctions towards Katofsky and his consumer.
The spouse later notified the choose that she had settled the divorce case along with her husband, and he or she withdrew the movement to compel. The trial choose partly granted the sanction request anyway, ordering Katofsky’s consumer to pay $9,981.
The appeals courtroom mentioned beneath the relevant legal guidelines, the choose couldn’t impose any sanction as a result of no order had been entered requiring compliance with the subpoena.
Katofsky instructed the ABA Journal that the appeals courtroom made the proper resolution. He additionally says as a lawyer, he doesn’t must be on digicam in a deposition.
“I’ve little interest in ever being on digicam. Ever,” he says.
“No lawyer must be on digicam,” he says. “It’s fully inappropriate to demand it. In the event that they had been nervous about seeing me, they may have taken the deposition in particular person.”
Katofsky additionally says his consumer is an insurance coverage agent, not an individual who takes sports activities bets.
“He has nothing to do with sports activities betting in any respect,” Katofsky says.
The case is Agnone v. Agnone.
[ad_2]
Source link
