<p><b>Friedman v. Sup. Ct.</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">Filed 9/28/06 Friedman v. Sup. Ct. CA2/8</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b>California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION EIGHT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="620"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p>JOSHUA FRIEDMAN et al.,</p> <br /> <p align="right"> </p> <br /> <p> Petitioners,</p> <br /> <p> v.</p> <br /> <p>SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE</p> <br /> <p>OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,</p> <br /> <p> Respondent;</p> <br /> <p>LORETTA G. EVENSEN,</p> <br /> <p> Real Party in Interest.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="301" valign="top"> <br /> <p> B188701</p> <br /> <p> (Los Angeles County </p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. BD371367)</p> <br /> <p> ORDER MODIFYING OPINION</p> <br /> <p> AND DENYING PETITION FOR</p> <br /> <p> REHEARING</p> <br /> <p> NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p>THE COURT:*</p> <br /> <p> It is ordered that the opinion herein filed on August 29, 2006, be <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">modified</a> as follows:</p> <br /> <p> (1) On page 18, the heading of part 5 is deleted and the following is substituted in lieu of the deleted text:</p> <br /> <p><b><i>5. One Deposition of One of the Petitioners Should Suffice; the Remaining Two Depositions Should Take Place Only If There Is a Need for These Depositions</i></b></p> <br /> <p> (2) On page 18, in the last paragraph, delete the word <a href="http://www.sandiegohealthdirectory.com/">“custodial”</a> in the first and fourth sentences, and delete the phrase “<a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">as a custodian of records</a>“ in the third sentence, so that the paragraph reads:</p> <br /> <p> The trial court ordered all three depositions to go forward. We do not think this is necessarily required. Petitioners should designate the persons most knowledgeable. If, after this deposition has been taken, there is a need for further depositions, absent an agreement between the parties the court should order such further depositions as appear to be necessary.</p> <br /> <p> There is no change in the judgment.</p> <br /> <p> Real party in interest’s <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">petition for rehearing</a> is denied.</p> <br /> <p>* COOPER, P.J. RUBIN, J. FLIER, J.</p> <br /> <p>Publication courtesy of <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">California free legal advice</a>.</p> <br /> <p>Analysis and review provided by <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.</a></p>