Banga v. Kanios
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:16-cv-04270
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Banga v. Kanios, Judge Seeborg ordered expert Sidney Blum’s deposition, required specified payments and documents, and denied defendants’ request to exclude Blum.
Navjeet Singh Banga, his expert Sidney Blum, and the defendants were affected by the deposition, payment, document-production, and warning provisions.
What happened
In Banga v. Kanios, plaintiff Navjeet Singh Banga asked the court to address defendants’ position concerning the deposition of his economic-damages expert, Sidney Blum. Banga represented himself, and he and Blum had not appeared for an earlier court-ordered deposition after Banga’s objections were overruled.
The court ordered Blum to appear by videoconference on June 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. It set payment requirements for additional testimony and subpoena-related work, required Banga to pay the court reporter fees from the missed deposition, and ordered Banga to produce responsive documents by specified deadlines.
Judge Seeborg warned that violating the order could lead to sanctions, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The court denied defendants’ request to exclude Blum as an expert because the record did not support that remedy.
The detailed version
- Banga v. Kanios · No. 3:16-cv-04270
- Richard Seeborg
- June 25, 2021
Background
The order addressed continuing disputes about the deposition of Sidney Blum, Banga’s economic-damages expert. The court had previously ordered the parties to select a deposition date and had ordered Blum to appear by videoconference, subject to specified payment terms. After additional disputes, including Blum’s demand for further fees, the court ordered Blum to appear on May 26, 2021.
Banga objected to that order. Judge Seeborg overruled the objections on the morning of May 26, but Banga and Blum did not appear. The court stated that an objection to a discovery order does not suspend the order unless the reviewing judge grants a stay. Banga later represented that Blum remained his expert and said Blum was available for a deposition on June 28.
Court’s directives
The court ordered Blum to appear for deposition on June 28, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The deposition was subject to the payment provisions in the earlier order. Defendants were entitled to up to six additional hours of testimony at the previously ordered rate of $800 per hour, with $750 payable by defendants and $50 payable by Banga. Because defendants had already paid for three hours, Blum was required to provide two hours without additional charge and up to four more hours upon request, with the applicable fees payable within 24 hours after the deposition.
If defendants had not already paid the $450 flat fee for Blum’s time responding to their subpoena, the court ordered them to pay it within 24 hours after the deposition. Because Banga lacked good cause for the May 26 nonappearance and defendants incurred court-reporter fees, the court ordered Banga to pay the court-reporter fees for the June 28 deposition.
The court also required Banga to produce any outstanding documents responsive to defendants’ subpoena by 6:00 p.m. on June 26, 2021. Responsive documents created after the May 14 order had to be produced at Blum’s deposition.
Ruling
The court denied defendants’ request to exclude Blum as an expert, finding that the current record did not support that remedy. It warned that violating the order could result in sanctions, including payment of attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties were urged to complete the deposition without further dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.