Trials & Litigation
Consumer escapes sanction for lawyer’s refusal to look on digicam in Zoom deposition
A consumer gained’t need to pay a sanction of practically $10,000 for his lawyer’s refusal to look on digicam throughout a distant deposition, a California appeals courtroom dominated Tuesday. (Picture from Shutterstock)
A consumer gained’t need to pay a sanction of practically $10,000 for his lawyer’s refusal to look on digicam throughout a distant deposition, a California appeals courtroom dominated Tuesday.
In an unpublished opinion, the California Courtroom of Enchantment’s Second Appellate District dominated that the consumer doesn’t need to pay as a result of a movement to compel the legal professional’s on-camera look had been withdrawn.
Law360 and the Metropolitan News-Enterprise lined 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 needed his testimony about 1000’s of {dollars} in sports activities bets stated to be positioned by her husband, largely 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 keeping with the Metropolitan Information-Enterprise.
The opinion described what occurred on the deposition.
Katofsky was in the identical room as his consumer in the course of the deposition. The consumer appeared on digicam, however Katofsky refused to activate his webcam. The lawyer for Shawn Agnone complained that he wouldn’t be capable 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 laptop geared up with a webcam,and with a secure landline/wired ethernet connection to the web.”
Katofsky instructed the opposing lawyer that his laptop was geared up with a webcam, “so we complied together with your discover,” in keeping 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 in opposition to Katofsky and his consumer.
The spouse later notified the decide that she had settled the divorce case along with her husband, and he or she withdrew the movement to compel. The trial decide partly granted the sanction request anyway, ordering Katofsky’s consumer to pay $9,981.
The appeals courtroom stated underneath the relevant legal guidelines, the decide 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 suitable resolution. He additionally says as a lawyer, he doesn’t need to be on digicam in a deposition.
“I’ve no real interest in ever being on digicam. Ever,” he says.
“No lawyer must be on digicam,” he says. “It’s utterly inappropriate to demand it. In the event that they had been frightened about seeing me, they might have taken the deposition in individual.”
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.
