Depositions have concluded in the lawsuit challenging the Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education’s selection of its vice president, moving the case into its next phase ahead of a Dec. 1 trial.

The final depositions were completed on Sept. 18, the deadline set by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Tiana J. Murillo.

Attorneys for BHUSD and the individual defendants deposed Board Member Amanda Stern, Stern’s wife Lisa Rubel, Beverly Hills Weekly columnist Peter Ostroff and plaintiff Daniel Lifschitz.

Lifschitz deposed Board President Judy Manouchehri, Board Vice President Sigalie Sabag, Board Member Russell Stuart and Krissy Austin, executive assistant to the superintendent of schools at BHUSD. Lifschitz said the district designated Austin as its “person most qualified” to testify on its behalf.

Immediately following Manouchehri’s deposition, an audio recording provided by Lifschitz captured an exchange in which Manouchehri criticized Lifschitz’s wife, Kim Lifschitz. Manouchehri is seeking reelection to the Board of Education in the Nov. 3 election and is running against Kim Lifschitz.

“Support a real candidate. Not a little girl who wants a horse in the window that her husband is getting for her at the detriment and to the cost of the community’s wellbeing,” Manouchehri said in the recording.

Daniel Lifschitz said Manouchehri made the remark after she tossed her campaign flyer at him.

Manouchehri did not provide additional comment by press time.

The conclusion of the depositions marks the end of a discovery process focused on the district’s contention that an alleged violation of California’s open meetings law prompted the board to redo its vice presidential election.

Lifschitz said his opening brief is due Oct. 2. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Nov. 3.

A trial remains scheduled for Dec. 1 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

“While I’m grateful to have finally wrapped discovery in this case, as the Talmud teaches us, justice delayed is justice denied,” Lifschitz said in a statement. “But for the board’s multiple lawless delays and false promises, we would have been done four months ago, and trial wouldn’t be scheduled for the eve of the board’s next organizational meeting. Moreover, my family wouldn’t be dealing with constant harassment by individuals who’ve decided that a candidate’s spouse holding the government accountable for breaking the law is an electoral liability. Regardless, I remain focused on delivering that accountability to the residents of Beverly Hills and look forward to receiving the court’s verdict in December.”

Lifschitz, an attorney and BHUSD parent, filed the lawsuit in January against the district, Manouchehri, Sabag and Stuart. He alleges that the board violated district bylaws when it appointed Sabag as vice president in December 2025 instead of following its officer rotation, which would have elevated Stern to the position.

After the December appointment was challenged, the board amended its bylaws and held another election in January, again selecting Sabag as vice president.

The district and board members have argued that the December election was affected by a potential violation of the Brown Act, California’s open meetings law. They contend that the January vote was necessary to cure and correct the alleged violation.

Murillo ruled in August that discovery should be limited to the alleged Brown Act violation, finding that it was the only factual defense raised by the district and board members that warranted further examination.

Specifically, the judge allowed discovery into whether a prohibited “serial meeting” occurred before the December vote. Under the Brown Act, a serial meeting can occur when members of a public body communicate through a series of conversations outside a properly noticed public meeting in a manner involving a majority of the body.

Murillo also allowed Lifschitz to seek information about the communications, inquiries or investigation that caused the district and board members to conclude that a violation had occurred and how that conclusion became the basis for the January vote.

The court barred discovery into matters including “political motives, personal disputes/animus, past interpersonal conflicts” that were unrelated to the alleged Brown Act violation.

Murillo previously ordered Manouchehri, Sabag, Stuart and a district representative to sit for depositions after rejecting arguments from the defense that their testimony was unnecessary. The court also required the district and board members to provide sworn declarations detailing their searches for documents requested by Lifschitz.

In August, Murillo denied the defendants’ request to depose Kim Lifschitz and limited Daniel Lifschitz’s deposition to two hours.

The litigation has continued despite multiple attempts to reach a settlement. In July, the board declined to approve a proposed agreement that would have installed Stern as vice president through the board’s December reorganization meeting and ended the lawsuit. Another potential settlement discussed in August also failed to resolve the case.

BHUSD did not respond to a request for comment.