Declaration In SupportCal. Super. - 6th Dist.November 20, 2020LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Slwm-I LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP JOSEPH R. LORDAN, SB# 265610 E-Mail: Joseph.Lordan@lewisbrisbois.com ALLISON L. CARDENAS, SB# 272924 E-Mail: Allison.Cardenas@lewisbrisbois.com JOSEPH L.J. APPEL, SB# 276946 E-Mail: Joseph.Appel@lewisbrisbois.com 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, California 94104-2872 Telephone: 415.362.2580 Facsimile: 415.434.0882 Attorneys for Defendant BBVA USA Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/7/2021 3:52 PM Reviewed By: L Del Mundo Case #20CV373869 Envelope: 6597956 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KIMBERLY DOE, Plaintiff, vs. BBVA USA, an Alabama Corporation; MAHMOUD ALAEDDIN, an individual; and DOES 1 TO 30, inclusive, Defendants. 4826-9255-3965.1 1 Case No. 20CV373869 Assigned For A11 Purposes T0 Judge Peter H. Kirwan, Dept. 19 DECLARATION 0F JOSEPH L.J. APPEL 1N SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANT BBVA USA’S MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSE T0 DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS 1N THE AMOUNT 0F $3,665 PURSUANT T0 C.C.P §§ 2030.300(a)(3), 2030.300(d) Reservation No.: Date: Time: Dept.: Action Filed: December 28, 2020 Trial Date: None Set DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L.J. APPEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE AND SANCTIONS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Slwm-I LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L.J. APPEL I, Joseph L.J. Appel, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in all 0f the courts 0f the State 0f California and I am an associate with Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, attorneys 0f record for Defendant BBVA USA herein. The facts set forth herein are ofmy own personal knowledge, and if sworn I could and would competently testify thereto. 2. On June 1, 2021, I sent an email t0 Plaintiff’s counsel, Todd K. Davis, and requested a short two-week extension of the June 7, 2021 deadline t0 file a motion to compel t0 allow the parties t0 further meet and confer regarding Plaintiff s regarding Plaintiff s failure t0 provide an amended response to Special Interrogatory N0. 1, for which he asserted objections only in his original response. Mr. Davis replied Via email that same day and stated, “I’m 0n vacation, I can ’t look at this until I get back.” Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the June 1, 2021 email and subsequent email string of correspondence ending on June 4, 2021. 3. Approximately 30 minutes after his reply, I received a document Via email from Mr. Davis’s office styled as Notice 0f Unavailabilily ofCounsel indicating “that commencing June 1, 2021, through June 7, 2021, Todd K. Davis, counsel of record in the above-referenced case, will be unavailable for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited t0 receiving notices of any kind, responding to ex parte applications, appearing in court, attending depositions, responding to discovery requests, responding to motions, or for any other purpose. Purposely scheduling or rescheduling a conflicting proceeding Without good cause is sanctionable conduct. Tenderloin Housing Clinic v. Sparks (1992) 8 Ca1.App.4th 299.” Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Unavailability of Counsel. 4. On June 2, 2021, I emailed Mr. Davis t0 again request a two-week extension. Idid not receive a response t0 this request. (See Exhibit A.) That same day I began drafting Defendant’s motion to compel and supporting papers. 5. On June 4, 2021, Ireceived an email from Mr. Davis stating in relevant part: Special interrogatory 1 seeks information which is subject to Kimberly’s right to privacy, is protected by the doctor/patient privilege and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Aside from your 4826-9255-3965.1 2 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L.J. APPEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE AND SANCTIONS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Slwm-I LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 office’s position that you are entitled t0 mental health information, which has been discussed by telephone and email multiple times, this interrogatory seeks treatment information for “physicians, doctors, nurses, chiropractors, skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, hospitals and clinics.” Kimberly unequivocally has not put her physical health at issue, she has not claimed a physical injury and you are not entitled to this information. (See Exhibit A.) 6. I replied t0 Mr. Davis later that same day Via email, stating in relevant part: Special Interrogatory No. 1 seeks only the names of health care providers that Ms. Murphy has sought treatment with during the last five years. It does not ask for her medical records 0r physician-patient communications. The scope of discovery is extremely broad-i.e., any unprivileged, relevant matter that is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. Since Ms. Murphy claims that BBVA caused her emotional distress- regardless if you want to categorize it is as “garden variety” 0r not-BBVA is entitled to this information as it is likely t0 lead t0 admissible evidence (such as her medical records and/or witnesses” names and contact information) establishing that Ms. Murphy had other potential stressors that caused her alleged emotional distress and that it was not BBVA that did so. Ms. Murphy has publicly published about her various past traumas (sexual assault prior to working for BBVA, her divorce, chronic illnesses, including an eating disorder) all over the internet. Thus, any contention that this information is privacy-protected is a stretch. Moreover, Ms. Murphy has n0 reasonable expectation 0f privacy regarding her health care provider’s identities. This information is frequently given to health and life insurance companies and contains no private information-it is simply their names and contact information. Any expectation 0f privacy would not be reasonable. And compared to BBVA’s compelling interest in this information, BBVA believes the balance Will weigh in its favor. Moreover, at trial BBVA Will rely 0n these other stressors t0 rebut her claim that BBVA caused her emotional distress. Moreover, Plaintiff s battery cause of action claims she has suffered physical distress and has been injured in the mind and body, thus contrary to her contentions, she has put both her mental and physical condition at issue here. Additionally, the physician-patient privilege does not apply either as it protects only confidential communications. Accordingly, in light 0f your failure t0 provide us With an amended response 0r even an extension t0 further meet and confer on this issue for that matter, we will be filing a motion to compel further response and seek sanctions against you 0n Monday, June 7, 2021. T0 the extent you want t0 raise your arguments in response t0 our subpoenas 0f these records once we obtain this information, you may do so at that time. But your arguments below are misplaced and not appropriate given the information sought in Special Interrogatory N0. 1. (See Exhibit A.) 7. Mr. Davis responded Via email later that afternoon and wrote in relevant part: The names of the Plaintiff’s medical providers are subj ect to her right t0 privacy and are not discoverable unless she puts her physical condition at issue, Which she has not. We have alleged that Kimberly’s BBVA supervisor rubbed her shoulders, we did not claim that she suffered a physical injury from it or that she required 4826-9255-3965.1 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L.J. APPEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE AND SANCTIONS LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Slwm-I LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 medical attention for the shoulder rub. If the complaint is unclear in this regard, we are Willing to amend the complaint t0 clarify that there is no claim 0f physical injury or resulting medical treatment. (See Exhibit A.) 8. Ihave spent two hours drafting this motion and supporting documentation (e.g., separate statement, this declaration, notice of motion, memorandum, request for judicial notice, and proposed order). I expect t0 spend four hours drafting a reply t0 Plaintiff’ s opposition and one hour attending the hearing on this motion. My hourly rate is $295. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed 0n June 7, 2021, at Oakland, California. W Joseph L.J. Appel 4826-9255-3965.1 4 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH L.J. APPEL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE AND SANCTIONS EXHIBIT A From: Todd Davis Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 5:36 PM To: Appel, Joseph Cc: Cardenas, Allison; Maryben Stover Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Joe- The names of the Plaintiff’s medical providers are subject to her right to privacy and are not discoverable unless she puts her physical condition at issue, which she has not. We have alleged that Kimberly’s BBVA supervisor rubbed her shoulders, we did not claim that she suffered a physical injury from it or that she required medical attention for the shoulder rub. If the complaint is unclear in this regard, we are willing to amend the complaint to clarify that there is no claim of physical injury or resulting medical treatment. lalso do not believe that the Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress from your client’s conduct allows for discovery of her psychiatric records but that does not matter for this discussion as Special Interrogatory Number 1 does not ask for that information. | believe that your claim that the Plaintiff’s medical records could lead to admissible evidence is stretch and does not override her privacy interest, if this were true medical records would be discoverable in every civil dispute whether a physical injury were alleged or not. If you have any authority to support this position, | will review it and if necessary reconsider. | do not see how posting information on the internet waives broad categories of privacy rights. Because she posted some very private information on the internet, by her choice for cathartic purposes, you can have any of her private information you want to see what you can find? That makes no sense. If you have any authority to support your position that it does in this instance, we will review it. As we are at an impasse and this is a single issue, | suggest we ask the court to refer us to their informal discover dispute resolution program and if that does not work you can file your motion. Todd From: Appel, Joseph Sent: Friday, June 04, 2021 4:30 PM To: Todd Davis Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Todd, Special Interrogatory No. 1 seeks only the names of health care providers that Ms. Murphy has sought treatment with during the last five years. It does not ask for her medical records or physician-patient communications. The scope of discovery is extremely broad-i.e., any unprivileged, relevant matter that is admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Since Ms. Murphy claims that BBVA caused her emotional distress-regardless if you want to categorize it is as ”garden variety” or not-BBVA is entitled to this information as it is likely to lead to admissible evidence (such as her medical records and/or witnesses’ names and contact information) establishing that Ms. Murphy had other potential stressors that caused her alleged emotional distress and that it was not BBVA that did 1 so. Ms. Murphy has publicly published about her various past traumas (sexual assault prior to working for BBVA, her divorce, chronic illnesses, including an eating disorder) all over the internet. Thus, any contention that this information is privacy-protected is a stretch. Moreover, Ms. Murphy has no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding her health care provider’s identities. This information is frequently given to health and life insurance companies and contains no private information-it is simply their names and contact information. Any expectation of privacy would not be reasonable. And compared to BBVA’s compelling interest in this information, BBVA believes the balance will weigh in its favor. Moreover, at trial BBVA will rely on these other stressors to rebut her claim that BBVA caused her emotional distress. Moreover, Plaintiff’s battery cause of action claims she has suffered physical distress and has been injured in the mind and body, thus contrary to her contentions, she has put both her mental and physical condition at issue here. Additionally, the physician-patient privilege does not apply either as it protects only confidential communications. Accordingly, in light of your failure to provide us with an amended response or even an extension to further meet and confer on this issue for that matter, we will be filing a motion to compel further response and seek sanctions against you on Monday, June 7, 2021. To the extent you want to raise your arguments in response to our subpoenas of these records once we obtain this information, you may do so at that time. But your arguments below are misplaced and not appropriate given the information sought in Special Interrogatory No. 1. However, given the broad scope of discovery and the fact that there are many ways to protect Ms. Murphy’s privacy interests while also allowing BBVA to review this information as it is directly relevant to her claimed damages, it seems unlikely that you would prevail on a motion to quash these subpoenas at a later point in time. Sincerely, Joe From: Todd Davis Sent: Friday, June 4, 2021 2:53 PM To: Appel, Joseph Cc: Cardenas, Allison ; Maryben Stover Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Joe- Special interrogatory 1 seeks information which is subject to Kimberly’s right to privacy, is protected by the doctor/patient privilege and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Aside from your office’s position that you are entitled to mental health information, which has been discussed by telephone and email multiple times, this interrogatory seeks treatment information for ”physicians, doctors, nurses, chiropractors, skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, hospitals and clinics.” Kimberly unequivocally has not put her physical health at issue, she has not claimed a physical injury and you are not entitled to this information. This really is not even a close call. As for mental health records and treatment (which interrogatory 1 does not ask for), | have been over this with your colleagues multiple times, Kimberly is not making a claim for extreme emotional distress, she is not claiming a psychiatric or psychological injury She is claiming the typical emotional distress that you would expect to experience by having your much older and married supervisor hit on you. To the extent the pleadings or unclear on this, we are willing to clean them up. If you need us to stipulate we will, but Kimberly’s mental health has not been put at issue and is therefore not discoverable. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Special Interrogatory Number 1 which asks for the identity of doctors, nurses, chiropractors etc. Todd From: Appel, Joseph [mailto:Joseph.Appe|@Iewisbrisbois.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2021 9:38 AM To: Todd Davis Cc: Cardenas, Allison ; Maryben Stover Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Todd, For context, Special Interrogatory N0. 1 states: ”IDENTIFY each and every HEALTH-CARE PROVIDER YOU have seen between January 1, 2016 and present.” We would like to further meet and confer with you on this issue, including narrowing the scope of the request, to avoid motion practice. To accommodate our meet and confer efforts, we request an extension of time to July 8, 2021 to file a motion to compel. Please let us know by 5pm today if you agree to the proposed extension. Thank you for your courtesy. Sincerely, Joe From: Todd Davis Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 5:24 PM To: Appel, Joseph Cc: Cardenas, Allison ,- Maryben Stover Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Idon't know what interrogatory number 1 is and | am not looking at it until | get back. From: Appel, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2021 3:30 PM To: Todd Davis Cc: Cardenas, Allison ,- Maryben Stover Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Todd, Sorry to interrupt your vacation (truly). Ijust wanted to point out that as of right now we have until June 7 to move to compel on Special Interrogatory No. 1. We would like an extension to July 8, 2021 to avoid unnecessary motion practice and allow for more time to meet and confer with you on this issue. Please let me know if you are agreeable. Please continue enjoying your margarita/pina colada. Thanks. Sincerely, Joe From: Todd Davis Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:56 PM To: Appel, Joseph Cc: Cardenas, Allison ; Maryben Stover Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Joe- I’m on vacation, | can’t look at this until Iget back. Todd From: Appel, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2021 2:25 PM To: Todd Davis Cc: Cardenas, Allison ,- Maryben Stover Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Todd, Thank you for the prompt response. This confirms that the deadline for defendant to file a motion to compel in connection with plaintiff’s amended responses to Form Interrogatories-Set One, Special Interrogatories-Set One, Requests for Admission-Set One, and Request for Production of Documents-Set One (all served on May 24, 2021) is July 8, 2021. Please let me know if you disagree with this deadline. | note that no amended response was served for Special Interrogatory No. 1. Please let me know if you agree to similarly extend the filing deadline (i.e., to July 8, 2021) regarding this response as well. Thank you. Sincerely, Joe From: Todd Davis Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:49 PM To: Appel, Joseph Cc: Cardenas, Allison ; Maryben Stover Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Joe- Iam out of the office until Friday, thank you for the heads up 0n my voice mail. We served you with amended responses so my understanding is that any deficiencies with the amendments would give you a fresh 45 days to address. Todd From: Appel, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2021 1:15 PM To: Todd Davis Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Dear Mr. Davis, Itried to call you this afternoon to leave a voice message but your inbox was full. Melanie is no longer working on this matter, and | will be assisting Allison with this case going forward. | am still getting up to speed and would like to request a short two-week extension to file a motion to compel (should we not resolve any outstanding discovery issues). The new deadline would be June 21, 2021. Please advise if you agree to the proposed extension. Thank you for your courtesy. Sincerely, Joe Joseph L. J. Appel Attorney Joseph.Appe|@lewisbrisbois.com BRISBOIS T:415.438.5978 F:415.434.0882 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104 | LewisBrisbois.com Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored. From: Todd Davis Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 11:55 AM To: Massey, Melanie ; Maryben Stover Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Melanie- Iagree to the two week extension to file the motion to compel to June 7. | plan to amend most, but not all, of the responses that you complained about except those that related to counseling, psychiatric records etc for the reasons we have already discussed. | should have amended responsed to you next week. Todd From: Massey, Melanie [mailtozMelanie.Massev@|ewisbrisbois.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 9:11 AM To: Todd Davis ; Maryben Stover Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Thank you for agreeing t0 amend some responses and to extend our deadline for a motion to compel. Please let us know which responses you’re planning to amend and what your estimated timeframe is for the responses. Our current deadline to file is May 24th, would a two-week extension to June 7th be enough time for you to provide amended responses and for us to review them? Thank you. From: Todd Davis Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 5:22 PM To: Massey, Melanie ; Maryben Stover Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Melanie- We will amend some but not all of the discovery responses. As previously discussed, we are not pursuing a claim for extreme emotional distress and therefore medical information is not discoverable and will not be produced. | likely will not have this done by May 13 but | am willing to agree to extend your time to file a motion to compel. | hope that in the future we can both agree to leave the personal insults out of correspondence, it violates local rules and does not help us or our clients. Todd From: Massey, Melanie [mailtozMelanie.Massey@|ewisbrisbois.com] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2021 4:13 PM To: Todd Davis ; Maryben Stover Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Hi Mr. Davis, Iwanted to follow up on this as we have still not heard back in regards to our April 21“ letter concerning Plaintiff’s deficient discovery responses and production. Our last day to file a Motion to Compel is May 24th. Therefore, if we do not hear from you by this Thursday, the 13th, we will be forced to file a Motion to Compel. Thank you, Melanie Massey From: Todd Davis Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 5:59 PM To: Massey, Melanie ; Maryben Stover Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: [EXT] RE: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Caution:This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Melanie- Thank you for your email, | will go through your letter with my client and get back to you next week. As you and | discussed in our telephone conversation, my client is not making a claim for extreme emotional distress or a psychiatric injury. To the extent that is not clear in either the Complaint or the discovery responses, we are willing to amend. The emotional distress claim in this action is just the typical ”garden variety” emotional distress that any young woman would experience when she is being sexually pursued by her supervisor who is twenty years older than she is and already has two wives. As such we have not put Kim’s mental condition at issue and her therapy records are protected by HIPPA, her right to privacy and are not discoverable. | am not aware of any records related to drug and alcohol counseling, but to the extent there are any, they are subject to her right to privacy as well, have not been put at issue and are not discoverable. Kim will not sign your HIPPA release. Sorry to send this to you on a Friday evening, | hate it when lawyers do that to me, but I’ve been tied up all week and next week will be just as bad. Have a good weekend. Todd From: Massey, Melanie [mailtozMelanie.Massev@|ewisbrisbois.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 4:30 PM To: Todd Davis ; Maryben Stover Cc: Cardenas, Allison Subject: Doe v. BBVA Meet and Confer Plaintiff's Discovery Responses Mr. Davis, Attached, please find Defendant BBVA’s meet and confer concerning Plaintiff’s discovery responses. | have also attached the HIPAA release for Plaintiff’s records with Jaimi Taylor concerning her treatment for emotional distress issues. | would again ask that Plaintiff sign it. As previously stated, we believe Plaintiff’s records are relevant to her claims and so we would ask for your cooperation in obtaining them. We believe any substance abuse treatment related to this matter is also relevant and so would ask for Plaintiff to sign the release in its entirety and ask you to provide the justification for why records related to treatment for alcohol or drug related disorders would not be relevant. Thank you, Melanie Massey Melanie D. Massey Attorney Melanie.Massev@lewisbrisbois.com BRISBOIS T:415.438.6690 F:415.434.0882 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104 | LewisBrisbois.com Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete this email ancl any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored. EXHIBIT B \OW‘JQM-WWNH MNNNN HHHHHHHy-ur-d TODD K. DAVIS SBN 169654 FARLING, HECHT & DAVIS m 96 NORTH THIRD STREET, SUITE 660 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95 1 12 TELEPHONE: (408) 295-6100 FAX: (408) 299-0396 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF KIMBERLY DOE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KIMBERLY DOE, 1 N0. 20CV373869 Plaintiff, V. NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF 4 COUNSEL BBVA USA, an Alabama Corporation; MAHMOUD ALAEDDIN, an individual; and DOES 1 to 30, inclusive, Defendants. = TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that commencing June 1, 2021, through June 7, 2021 , Todd K. Davis, counsel of record in the above-referenced case, will be unavailable for any purpose whatsoever, including but not limited to receiving notices of any kind, responding to ex parte applications, appearing in court, attending depositions, responding to discovery requests, responding to motions, or for any other purpose, Purposely scheduling or rescheduling a conflicting proceeding without good cause is sanctionable conduct. Tendefloin Housing Clinic v. SQarks (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 299. Dated: June 1, 2021 FARLING, HECHT & DAVISWW By 'TODD K. DAVIS Attorney for Plaintiff KIMBERLY DOE l \OOONJO‘sth 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doe v. BBVA USA, et al. Santa Clara County Case No.2 ZOCV373869 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL (EMAIL) ONLY I am a citizen of the United States. My business address is 96 North Third Street, Suite 660, San Jose, CA 951 12. l am employed in the County of Santa Clara, where this mailing occurs. I am over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within cause. My electronic service address is: maryben@fhd|lp.com. I electronically served today the attached document(s) described as: NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL to the following addresses: BBVA USA Mahmoud Alaeddin Joseph R. Lordan, Esquire David M. Marchiano, Esquire Allison L. ShralIow, Esquire Brown, Gee & Wenger LLP Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard 8: Smith LLP Two Walnut Creek Center #400 333 Bush Street #1 100 Walnut Creek CA 94596 San Francisco CA 94104-2872 925-943-5000 415-362-2580 C - 925-708-7042 Fax: 41 5-434-0882 dmarchiano@bgwcounsel.com joseph.lordan@lewisbrisbois.com tpico@bgwcounsel.com allison.shrallow@lewisbrisbois.com Berenice.Barragan@lewisbrisbois.com SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISS|ON ONLY: Service has been performed by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. During the Coronavirus (Covid-1 9) pandemic, this office may be using electronic mail for service of documents. No electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful was received within a reasonable time after the transmission. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 1, 2021, at San Jose, California. Maryben Stover PROOF OF SERVTCE LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Slwm-I LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CALIFORNIA STATE COURT PROOF OF SERVICE Kimberly Doe V. BBVA USA, et a1. Santa Clara Superior, Case N0. 20CV373869 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time of service, Iwas over 18 years of age and not a party t0 this action. My business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104-2872. On June 7, 2021, I served true copies of the following document: DECLARATION 0F JOSEPH L.J. APPEL IN SUPPORT 0F DEFENDANT BBVA USA’s MOTION T0 COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S FURTHER RESPONSE T0 DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE; AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT 0F $3,665 PURSUANT T0 C.C.P §§ 2030.300(a)(3), 2030.300(d) I served the document 0n the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and e-mail addresses, if applicable): SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST The document was served by the following means: (BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE VIA FIRST LEGAL) Based 0n a court order, I caused the above-entitled document t0 be served through First Legal at https://firstlegal.com addressed t0 all parties appearing 0n the electronic service list for the above-entitled case. The service transmission was reported as complete and a copy of the First Legal Filing Receipt Page/Confirmation Will be filed, deposited, or maintained With the original document in this office. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 7, 2021, at San Leandro, California.W Betty Jeung 4826-9255-3965.1 5 PROOF OF SERVICE LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & Slwm-I LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW .5 QGUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST Kimberly Doe V. BBVA USA, et a1. Santa Clara Superior, Case N0. 20CV373869 TODD K. DAVIS Attorneysfor Plaintififi Kimberly Doe Farling, Hecht & Davis, LLP 96 North Third Street, Suite 660 Telephone: 408.295.6100 San Jose, CA 951 12 Facsimile: 408.299.0396 Email: todd@fl1dllp.com todd@farlinghechtanddavis.com David M. Marchiano Attorneysfor Mahmoud Alaeddin Brown Gee & Wenger 200 Pringle Avenue, Suite 400 Telephone: 925-943-5000 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Email: dmarchiano@bgwcounsel.com tDico@b2wcounsel.com 4826925539651 6 PROOF OF SERVICE