- 5 -
have once again filed motions to compel taking of Mr. Darwish’s
deposition, to which are attached the notices of objection
thereto that were previously served by respondent on petitioners.
It is these motions and objections which we consider in the
instant Memorandum Opinion.
Lastly, we note that concurrently with certain of the tax
proceedings detailed above, a separate civil suit was pending
against Mr. Ahmed in California Superior Court. On January 4,
1999, Mr. Darwish had filed a complaint naming as defendants Mr.
Ahmed, La Botica, and various other entities. The complaint
contained causes of action for intentional concealment,
intentional misrepresentation, conspiracy, dissolution of
corporation and accounting, declaratory relief, injunction, and
appointment of receiver. The factual allegations made in the
complaint parallel in many respects those underlying Mr.
Darwish’s affidavit and testimony in the jeopardy proceeding.
This civil suit was apparently settled out of court, as the
parties thereto requested that it be dismissed in January of
2000.
Discussion
Rule 75 governs the taking of depositions of nonparty
witnesses in instances where the parties cannot or will not agree
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011