Wrongful Death Suit filed Nov. 13, 2013 in California, #5

[screecher]

So a discovery hearing on July 15th. So can someone please explain to me what exactly occurs in a discovery hearing? TIA

You can Google it [emoji2] ! Let us all know please?

 

[SweetT]

We had a discovery hearing once yrs ago when my stepdaughter had been molested by her moms BF, but I don't really recall it being anything much at all. Here is the definition I found on google though: What is a discovery hearing in court?
Discovery is the term for the organized exchange of information between the parties. Even though engaging in discovery adds to the expense of the case, learning about the other side's case and being forced to reveal one's own case increases the likelihood of settlement.

Honestly I don't recall the process much as I can't recall if any of the parties got to talk or not, which is why I was asking, since it's been yrs.

 

[Betty P]

Latest entry for the case shows: Tentative Ruling for Discovery Hearing Published, but there's no link to view anything.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Next on the schedule is a discovery hearing on November 4, 2016

 

[SweetT]

Latest entry for the case shows: Tentative Ruling for Discovery Hearing Published, but there's no link to view anything.

https://roa.sdcourt.ca.gov/roa/faces/CaseSearch.xhtml

Next on the schedule is a discovery hearing on November 4, 2016

Wonder if it just hasnt been entered into the system yet, or if it just got put off till November now. I know sometimes online stuff takes a few days to get entered into the system.

 

[*Lash*]

Tentative Rulings can be viewed for free at the link below:

http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v3tr/scsdrulings.aspx

case# 2013-00075418

 

[*Lash*]

Below is the PDF of the Tentative Ruling from 07/14/16.

CASE NO.: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
CASE TITLE: ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

 

[Betty P]

Below is the PDF of the Tentative Ruling from 07/14/16.

CASE NO.: 37-2013-00075418-CU-PO-CTL
CASE TITLE: ESTATE OF REBECCA ZAHAU VS. SHACKNAI

Thanks! Where did you find that? I'm not an expert at finding things at that web site.

From the ruling:

Defendants must file their summary judgment motions, scheduled for January 13, 2017, by late October 2016. Plaintiffs concede "it would be helpful to allow some additional time for expert depositions" in advance of the March 10, 2017 trial date, and propose exchange dates of November 15 and December 9. These dates are after the summary judgment motions must be filed. As the Court previously noted, because plaintiffs admit there is no direct, physical evidence, the case turns largely on circumstantial evidence. Thus, expert testimony will be critical. Further, plaintiffs cannot claim prejudice from an early exchange date because they have been pursuing their claims here and in federal court since July 2013. Under these circumstances, an early expert exchange is warranted.

Defendant's request to depose plaintiffs' purported handwriting expert/consultant prior to the designation is denied. "An expert's identity and opinions are discoverable prior to designation only so long as it has become reasonably certain that the expert will testify at trial ... or if fairness requires it." Hernandez, supra, at 297. Plaintiffs have not decided whether they will designate a handwriting expert. Defendant will be free to depose plaintiffs' handwriting expert if one is designated.

JMO, it looks like Adam's attorneys are just trying to find out the plaintiff's strategy for the trial. They want to go after any handwriting expert the Zahau's hire, most likely to attempt to discredit them. Isn't that what the trial is for?

I find it somewhat ironic that the judge says the plaintiffs can't complain about an early discovery date because the trial has been going on since 2013, since it's the defendants who have dragged this process out so long.

So the defendants are worried about a handwriting expert who can testify that RZ didn't write the bizarre, ghoulish message on the bedroom door, and perhaps indicate that Adam did. IMO, it seems it should be enough for the expert to testify that RZ didn't write the message. As always IANAL, so it would be great to hear from an expert on this.

 

[screecher]

Thank you, Betty P, Lash and K_Z for keeping us all abreast on the Zahau WDS.

It's a s l o w moving train, but still on track!

 

[Betty P]

Thank you, Betty P, Lash and K_Z for keeping us all abreast on the Zahau WDS.

It's a s l o w moving train, but still on track!

Yes, much thanks to Lash for downloading the document. :loveyou:

 

[screecher]

Yes, thanks Lash, you sweetie 😁

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Glad to see that the Judge granted Adam's request in part, as she did move up the dates for the designation of experts:

The motion for early designation of experts, filed by defendant Adam Shacknai, is granted in part. The Court sets the initial expert exchange date for September 16, 2016, and the supplemental exchange for September 30, 2016.

So it is the Defendants that want things moved up, and the Plantiffs that are trying their best to stall. Mary and her lawyer did not even begin taking depostions until this past March!

In Adam Shacknai's Reply in Support of Motion for Early Designation of Experts:

Other parties started serving discovery two years ago. Enns Decl. Although the opposition claims that Plaintiffs are
"diligently pursuing" discovery (Opp. at 8:5), the reality is that they have not. Prior to 2016, Plaintiffs served a sum total of one third-party subpoena (on March 26, 2014) and noticed one deposition (on October 23, 2014) that did not take place. In fact, they failed to serve any written discovery on the Defendants until March 11, 20 16-the date of the demurrer hearing. Suppl. Enns Reply Decl. Similarly, they have failed to notice more than a single deposition that did not take place (although they have met and conferred about coordinating dates for one). E.g., Pyle Decl.

 

[Betty P]

Glad to see that the Judge granted Adam's request in part, as she did move up the dates for the designation of experts:



So it is the Defendants that want things moved up, and the Plantiffs that are trying their best to stall. Mary and her lawyer did not even begin taking depostions until this past March!

In Adam Shacknai's Reply in Support of Motion for Early Designation of Experts:

Not so sure how accurate that is. There have been many, many depositions take thus far. It's difficult to determine exactly who has been deposed and who hasn't as details haven't been revealed.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

Adam's lawyers make it perfectly clear the Zahaus did not dispose anyone nor ask for written discovery before March of this year. All of the earlier depositions were called by the Defense.

If anyone is trying to hold up the proceedings, it is the Zahaus and their lawyer. Why? Because they know they won't like the deposition answers proving that the Defendants were only concerned about Max, not murdering Rebecca Zahau.

 

[feelinghip]

You are correct the Zahaus have not disposed of anyone Lucky Lucy !

 

[Morag]

You are correct the Zahaus have not disposed of anyone Lucky Lucy !

I see what you did there

 

[*Lash*]

Thanks! Where did you find that? I'm not an expert at finding things at that web site.

Tentative Rulings can be viewed for free at the link below:

http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v3tr/scsdrulings.aspx

case# 2013-00075418

Hi Betty P :wave:

BBM- You may have missed my post on the previous page. Tentative Rulings are published on a different website and free of charge!

 

[Betty P]

Hi Betty P :wave:

BBM- You may have missed my post on the previous page. Tentative Rulings are published on a different website and free of charge!

Thanks, Lash! You're right, I must have skimmed right over that. Will try to remember.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

You are correct the Zahaus have not disposed of anyone Lucky Lucy !

You added an "of" to my sentence, "new" poster feelinghip. But you bring up a good point...we don't know that, do we? After all, we don't have video tape of the Zahaus every move for all of their lives, so could be. Rebecca and/or her sister just may have "disposed of" little Max. Too bad Jonah did not have video survellience of the stairwell. Maybe someome should sue all the Zahaus in civil court to find out if any of the family, including violent brother, Solo, has "disposed of" anyone.

But we do know the Zahaus have not deposed any of the Defendants in this case. Ask yourself why that would be? After almost 1000 days? Maybe because they know the defendants know nothing about Rebecca's suicide - the one she planned with the use of a book on "Rope Binding Techniques" and the Korean movie, The Housemaid? Maybe because she did this to "punish" the man she supposidly loved even more than she had by Max's freak "accident"? Maybe because Law Enforcement got it right?

Can't wait to see what other great facts we will learn from Adam, Dina, and Nina, that show Rebecca killed herself in the Summary Judgement Pleadings they will file!

 

[bourne]

^ You have no proof no one was deposed by the Zahaus. Cite the source.

If Zahaus didn't depose Dina and Nina and Adam, it's because of their eternal stalling. We know Dina and Nina are deathly scared of getting the truth out. Murderers are like that.

Justice for Rebecca. Comes at last.

 

[LuckyLucy2]

^ Ah, bourne, you must have missed the former posts discussing this - Zahaus did not do a dang thing until March of this year.

Adam let us know in his pleas to the court to move up the Exchange of Experts. Here is just one example, from DEFENDANT ADAM SHACKNAI'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EARLY DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 2034.230(b):

Page 2

Although they complain that discovery is far from complete, that is a

problem of their own making, having failed to serve any discovery (save a single subpoena and to

notice a deposition that did not take place) until March 2016.

Pages 3 and 4 (BBM)

But to the extent this is true, this is a problem of Plaintiffs own making. Plaintiffs

first made their salacious allegations in the operative complaint two years ago. Other parties started serving

2 discovery two years ago. Enns Decl. ~ 3. Although the opposition claims that Plaintiffs are

3 "diligently pursuing" discovery (Opp. at 8:5), the reality is that they have not. Prior to 2016,

4 Plaintiffs served a sum total of one third-party subpoena (on March 26, 2014) and noticed one

5 deposition (on October 23, 2014) that did not take place. In fact, they failed to serve any written

6 discovery on the Defendants until March 11, 20 16-the date of the demurrer hearing. Suppl. Enns

7 Reply Decl. ~ 2. Similarly, they have failed to notice more than a single deposition that did not take

8 place (although they have met and conferred about coordinating dates for one). E.g., Pyle Decl. ~ 7

9 ("On June 27, 2016, this office met and conferred with all counsel to coordinate dates for the

10 deposition of Defendant Nina Romano."). While the declarations submitted with the opposition

11 focus on pending discovery (Pyle Decl. ~~ 8-9; Greer Decl. ~ 8), it is discovery served by other

12 parties. Suppl. Enns Reply Decl. ~ 3.

I may have posted even more quotes about this a few pages back, should these not be enough.

And, as you may remember, AZ Lawyer has stated she has seen no stalling from the defendants, as well.

No, it is the Plantiff's stalling in this case. They keep hoping the defendants will settle. Will never happen for a crime they did not commit.


~ Justice for Adam, Dina, and Nina, whom the Zahau's have knowingly tried to frame as murderers to make some cash, for Rebecca's suicide. Too bad it seems the Zahaus miss Jonah's money more than they miss Rebecca. Very sad all around.