Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Depositions in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Depositions in Department 16D

list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion to compel further depositions is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 451(a); §452(b)-(d); see also Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

In this employment action, Plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action, including FEHA based causes of action for religious and national origin discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a family physician at CSP-Sacramento (CSP-SAC). Plaintiff alleges he raised concerns regarding safety and that as a result Defendant assigned him to more dangerous areas of the prison. Plaintiff was later diagnosed with bladder cancer and had been approved for leave. Prior to the leave, he reported to the Office of Inspector General that his supervisors were falsifying patient care data. Days later, Defendant rescinded his leave and later terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Trial is set for November 2, 2026.

Plaintiff now moves to compel further depositions of Preetranjan Sahota (“Sahota”), Manjula Bobbala (“Bobbala”), and Afshin Arya (“Arya”). The notice of motion also identifies Jasdeep Bal, although Plaintiff does not discuss Bal in the memorandum of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Depositions in Department 16D

points and authorities. According to Plaintiff, the Court ordered further deposition of Sahota has not been completed despite the fact that the parties reached an agreement to continue the deposition. As to Bobbala and Arya, Plaintiff argues that further depositions are warranted because neither have been deposed on the subjects of the termination of Plaintiff’s employment and other related issues. Plaintiff’s employment was terminated on March 28, 2022. Defendant opposes the motion on numerous grounds.

CCP § 2025.610 provides that “[o]nce a party has taken the deposition of any natural person, including that of a party to the action, neither the party who gave, nor any other party who has been served with a deposition notice pursuant to Section 2025.240 may take a subsequent deposition of that deponent.” (CCP § 2025.610(a).) “Notwithstanding subdivision (a), for good cause shown, the court may grant leave to take a subsequent deposition, and the parties, with the consent of any deponent who is not a party, may stipulate that a subsequent deposition be taken.” (CCP § 2025.610(b).)

Arya and Bobbala

The Court first concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate good cause with respect to further depositions of Arya and Bobbala. Arya’s deposition was completed on September 14, 2021. Bobbala was deposed on September 24, 2021, and May 12, 2022 following a Court order to compel Bobbala’s further testimony regarding certain peer review matters. According to Plaintiff, good cause for the further depositions exists because Plaintiff’s termination on March 28, 2022, fundamentally changed the factual issues in this action.” (Mot. 9:20-21.)

By Plaintiff’s own admission, he seeks further depositions because of an event that took place over four years ago. Plaintiff did not notice these further depositions until June 2026 and did not file the motion until July 31, 2026. (Hsieh Decl. ¶ 8, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s motion makes no attempt to explain why he waited more than four years to seek continued depositions. Plaintiff has been aware of the claimed need for continued depositions since March 2022. Plaintiff’s current counsel substituted in as counsel of record in late 2023 and no mention was made of the need for the continued depositions despite the fact that trial has been continued on two prior occasions.

The Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff has shown good cause for the continued depositions based upon an event that occurred more than four years ago and when Plaintiff made no effort to acknowledge must less explain the four-year delay. Notably, the Court recently denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint based on a similar failure to justify delay. However, with respect to that motion, Plaintiff attempted to offer an explanation, albeit not persuasive. Here, by contrast, Plaintiff offers no explanation or justification at all.

On this basis alone the motion is denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Depositions in Department 16D

Plaintiff’s attempt to justify the four-year delay in reply is rejected. It was incumbent upon Plaintiff to explain the delay in the moving papers. In any event, Plaintiff, as he did in the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, attempts to blame Defendant for the delay based on a claim that Defendant failed to complete a document production. That explanation was not persuasive in connection with the motion for leave to file an amended complaint and it is not persuasive here even if it had been properly raised.

In addition, as seen from the opposition, even assuming that Plaintiff had some reasonable justification for delaying more than four years (which Plaintiff did not offer), Plaintiff still has not set forth good cause. To that end, other than the termination of Plaintiff’s employment, the vast majority of the topics which Plaintiff identifies in the motion concern events which predated Arya’s and Bobbala’s depositions. For example, as to Arya, Plaintiff states that he wished to address “Plaintiff’s disability and medical condition, custody-related issues affecting Plaintiff’s employment, chronic understaffing, patient care concerns, Plaintiff’s interactions with management, [and] Plaintiff’s job performance during the relevant period.” (Mot. 10:16-22.)

Yet, all of these events deal with events during Plaintiff’s employment that predated Arya’s September 24, 2021 deposition. Plaintiff also “seeks testimony regarding any communications, observations, or events witnessed by Dr. Arya concerning Plaintiff's reports of patient safety concerns, workplace conditions, requests for accommodation, and other matters that arose after his initial deposition and bear on Plaintiff's claims of discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination.” (Mot. 10:23-27.)

Plaintiff’s vague reference to “other matters that arose after termination” suggest that Plaintiff is simply attempting to depose Arya on matters that Plaintiff’s counsel did not address at the September 2021 deposition. As to Bobbala, Plaintiff indicates that he wishes to address Letters of Instruction, Employee Counseling Records, the rescission of his approved leave, the invocation of AWOL status, Letters of Expectation, denial of CME credits, his EEO complaints, his reports to the Office of Inspector General and the LVN Board, complaints to headquarters, and the OIG inspection and findings. (Mot.11:15-19.)

All of those events occurred between 2017 and 2018. The OIG Inspection and leave recission occurred in March 2022, prior to Bobbala’s second deposition in May 2022. (Hsieh Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. A.) In addition, it appears that Plaintiff also seeks to depose Bobbala with respect to allegations and claims that appeared in Plaintiff’s proposed third amended complaint the filing of which has been denied. (Mot 11:20-12:2.) However, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the third amended complaint.

Plaintiff cannot obtain a further deposition of a witness based on a claimed need to address claims and allegations which do not exist in this action.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Depositions in Department 16D

In short, the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause for continued depositions of Arya and Bobbala and the motion as to them is denied.

Sahota

On July 13, 2022, Sahota was ordered by the Court to appear for a further deposition to answer four specific questions. (RJN 2) For some reason, the parties have not completed that further deposition. Defendant makes clear that it has offered to make Sahota available and communicated that to Plaintiff prior to the time the motion was filed. (Hsieh Decl. ¶ 14, Exh. G.)

Plaintiff argues that the Court’s July 13, 2022, order was not limited to the four questions identified in the order. Plaintiff contends that parties never finished Sahota’s deposition and that the July 13, 2022, order was related to certain questions but that the deposition otherwise remained open. However, the Court’s July 13, 2022, Order makes clear that the motion to compel further deposition questions as to Sahota only involved four questions. There is no indication from that Order that Plaintiff was permitted to do anything other than ask the four questions identified in the order or that the deposition was not finished.

In addition, Plaintiff did not present any evidence in the moving papers to demonstrate that the parties had any agreement with respect to Sahota’s deposition remaining upon pending resolution of the motion to compel his further deposition testimony. Rather, Plaintiff’s counsel simply stated in her declaration that on May 12, 2022, the parties mutually agreed to continue Sahota’s deposition after former defense counsel resolved a conflict of interest. (Benton Decl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff does not present any written agreement between the parties, or any evidence demonstrating such agreement.

Further, May 12, 2022, preceded the July 13, 2022, Order, and the Order said nothing about any questioning beyond the four specific questions. Plaintiff’s attempt to offer evidence in reply to demonstrate that the Sahota deposition was not completed is rejected. Plaintiff was required to make that showing in her moving papers.

As a result, the motion is granted as to Sahota, but only to the extent that Defendant is ordered to produce Sahota for deposition for purposes of answering the questions previously identified by the Court in the July 13, 2022, Order.

Bal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Depositions in Department 16D

As noted above, while Bal was identified in the notice, Plaintiff did not discuss Bal in the memorandum of points and authorities and thus necessarily failed to show good cause for a further deposition. The motion is denied as to Bal.

In sum, the motion is granted but only as to a further deposition of Sahota with respect to the questions Sahota was ordered by the Court to answer. The deposition shall take place no later than October 3, 2026, though the parties may meet and confer and agree on a later date.

The motion is denied in all other respects.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.