DeclarationCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 1, 2021wooqmowphme wwwwmwmer-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-tr-Ir-Iv-t OOQGDO‘lv-POOND-‘OCDOONGDOTr-PCJONHO Dmitry Stadlin, SBN 302361 STADLIN MARINHO LLP 111 N. Market Street. Suite 300 San Jose, California 95113 Tel: (408) 645-7801 Fax: (408) 645-7802 Email: ds@stadlinmarinh0.com Attorneys for Petitioner ALEXIS DACOSTA Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1/28/2022 4:49 PM Reviewed By: K. Nguyen Case #21 CH009837 Envelope: 8169095 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALEXIS DACOSTA Petitioner, And, KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, Respondent. I, Dmitry Stadlin, declare as follows: Case N0.: 21CH009837 DECLARATION OF DMITRY STADLIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DATE: 03/21/2022 TIME: Qiooam DEPT: 411 1. I am an attorney licensed and/or admitted t0 practice before all the Courts 0f the State of California, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District 0f California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 2. I am the attorney 0f record for Petitioner Alexis DaCosta (“Petitioner”) in this matter. 3. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto. 4. I make this declaration in support 0f Petitioner’s Motion t0 Quash Deposition Subpoena for Production 0f Business Records t0 Google, LLC by Respondent Krzysztof Sywula. 5. On January 24, 2022 at 1:18p.m., I receive an email from Respondent’s attorney, Mr. Christopher Walters providing me a subpoena that was going out for service. Upon opening the document, I discovered Respondent is trying t0 obtain records pertaining t0 Petitioner’s Gmail accounts from Google. 1 DECLARATION OF DMITRY STADLIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ©OOQOUOTI-POONI-l NNNNNNNNNr-In-tr-Ir-In-tr-Ir-Ir-tr-II-t mflmmfiwNHOCDOONGDmb-PCDNHO 6. On January 24, 2022, at 1:27p.m. I emailed Mr. Walters tried to meet and confer With him because Respondent’s subpoena is improper. I requested his cooperation t0 Withdraw the subpoena, and if he refuses, my intent t0 file a motion t0 quash the subpoena (See “Exhibit A”, a true and correct copy of the Email exchanges). 7. On January 25, 2022 at 8:59p.m., I followed up With my previous email. On January 26, 2022, at 7:08a.m. Mr. Walters responded stating that he Will not Withdraw the subpoena. (See “Exhibit B”, a true and correct copy 0f the Email exchanges). Attorney’s Fees Request 8. My standard hourly rate is $450.00 per hour. My paralegal’s standard hourly rate is $200.00 per hour. 9. I estimate that it Will take total 0f_ hours 0f work t0 conclude this motion t0 quash. This total hour includes_ hours already spent on researching, drafting, and revising this motion. I estimate I Will spend another_ hours 0n reviewing Respondent’s opposition, hours 0n drafting a reply and hours on attending the hearing of this motion. 10.1 request this court to award Petitioner attorneys’ fees in the amount 0f $ as sanctions for having to file this motion. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws 0f the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: January 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted,3% Dmitry Stadlin Attorney for Petitioner 2 DECLARATION OF DMITRY STADLIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS wooqmowphme wwwwmwmer-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-tr-Ir-Iv-t OOQGDO‘lv-POOND-‘OCDOONGDOTr-PCJONHO EXHIBIT A 3 DECLARATION OF DMITRY STADLIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS From: Dmigm §tadlin To: "§;hri§;gph§r Walmrg"; ghrismghgr W§|§§r§ Subject: RE: DaCosta/Sywula Date: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:27:00 PM AttachmenB: 2021-05-12 - 21CH009861 ORDER Granting Moiign IQ ansh._pdf Qggglg Dgcumgnt SghpQena with Amchmen: 3._ng Dear Mr. Walters, Thank you for your email. | am in receipt of the subpoena to google. Please consider this email as my meet and confer effort. Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §527.6 ”there is no provision under section 527.6 allowing for discovery, and in any case, under the Civil harassment scheme there is insufficient time in which to conduct discovery.” (Thomas v. Qu/ntero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, fn. 11; See generally: Byers v. Cathcart (2002) 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 81 1; Diamond View Limited v. Herz (1 986) 180 Cal.App.3d 61 2, 61 9-620, fn.8) Section 527.6, subdivision (d) requires the trial court to ”receive any testimony that is relevant” at the hearing. The court in Schraer commented in a footnote that this could be in the form of oral or written testimony, including affidavits, declarations or deposition. (Schraer v. Berke/ey Property Owners’ Assn. (1 989) 207 Cal.App3d at p. 733, fn. 6.) This statement is mystifying inasmuch as no case holds that discovery is allowed under section 527.6, and the general testimonial statute allowing for testimony in the form of affidavits, deposition, or oral testimony was earlier found by the Schraer court to be inapplicable to section 527.6 proceedings. (ld. at p. 731, 255 Cal.Rptr. 453.)” (Thomas v. Quintero (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, 650.) As a result, your subpoena is improper - and also it is itself harassing, overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, etc. If you disagree, please provide me with authority authorizing discovery in a Civil Harassment Restraining Order case. Let me know if you intend to proceed with the subpoena. Ivvould be glad to file a motion to quash, if required - but would like to minimize unnecessary litigation and attorney’s fees. As you are aware, once | prevail on the motion to quash, | would move for a monetary sanction under CCP 2024.41 O(d) - ’The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.01 O) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” lam also attaching a copy Ofa recent order signed in one of my Civil Harassment Order cases, in Which the Court found that there is no right to discovery in Civil Harassment Restraining Order cases. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed. Best Regards, Dmitry Stadlin Attorney at Law - Partner STADLIN MARINHO LLP 111 N. Market St. Ste. 300 Sanjose, CA 951 13 Tel: (408) 645-7801 - Let’s ghaxl Fax: (408) 645-7802 ds@stadlinmarinho.com StadlinMarinho.com From: Christopher Walters Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:18 PM To: Dmitry Stadlin ; Christopher Walters Subject: DaCosta/Sywula Please find the attached subpoena going out for service today. wmflmOTI-PODNH Nwwwwwwwwl-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-II-t OONGDCflr-PCJONHOCOOOQODO‘lr-POONI-‘O Envelope: 6417597 Dmitry Stadlin, SBN 302361 STADLIN MARINHO LLP 111 N. Market Street. Suite 300 San Jose, California 95113 Tel: (408) 645-7801 Fax: (408) 645-7802 Email: ds@stadlinmarinho.com Attorneys for Petitioner BRIAN CUONG TRAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRIAN CUONG TRAN Case N0.: 21CH009861 [-PRG-PGS-E-B] ORDER GRANTING Petitioner, i PETITIONER’S MOTION TO QUASH i DEPOSITION NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DATE: May 11, 2021 MICHAEL QUOC HAN, aka., MICHAEL i TIME: 9:00 a.m. HAN, aka., MIKE HAN, i DEPT: 4 Judge: Comm. Erik Johnson Respondent.m Having considered the briefs filed in support of, and in opposition, t0 Petitioner’s Motion t0 Quash, Re: Deposition Notice from Respondent Michael Quoc Han t0 Petitioner Brian Cuong Tran, the Court has determined that there is n0 right t0 Discovery in Civil Harassment Restraining Order Cases. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion to quash the deposition notice and request for production of documents is GRANTED. Dated: May 12, 2021 WW . Comm. Erik Johnson 1WW Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion t0 Quash Deposition Notice Filed May 12, 2021 County of Santa Clara Superior Court of CA Clerk of the Court 21CH009861 By: knguyen SUBP-01 0 ATTQRNEY OR PARTY \MTHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Barnumber. and address): Chnstopher L. Walters, Esq. (20551 O) FOR COURT USE ONLY WALTERS LAW GROUP 1901 First Avenue. Suite 229. San Diego. CA 92101 TELEPHONE No.: 619-888-5759 FAX No. (Opuonal): E-MAILADDRESSIOptbnaI): clw@walters-law-group.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Krzysztof Sywula SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA STREET ADDRESS: 191 N. First Street MAILING ADDRESS: cm AND ZIP cons: San Jose, CA 951 13 aRANCH NAME: Civil Division PLAINTIFF] PETITIONER: Alexis DaCosta DEFENDANT! RESPONDENT: Krzysztof Sywula CASE NUMBER:DEPOSITION SUBPOENA 21 CH009837 FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIEORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, ifknown): Google LLC, c/o CSC-Laywers Incorporating Service. 2710 Gateway Oaks Dr.. Ste. 150N, Sacramento, CA 95833 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name of deposition officer): Walters Law Group On (date) : February 4. 2022 At (time): 9:00 a.m. Location (address): 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor, San Diego, CA 92101 Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above. a. E by delivering a true. legible. and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the title and number of the action. name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed. and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1. b. E by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the witness's address. on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b). c. D by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be accompanied by an afiidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561. 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored infonnation is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of infomation is to be produced may be specified): See Attachment 3E Continued on Attachment 3. 4- IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Date issued: January 24. 2022 o VChristopher L. Walters, Esq. tWm (SIGNATUfi OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Attorney for Defendant Krzysztof Sywula (TITLE) (Proof of service on reverse) Page 1 or 2 ' ' . 20204104020440;F°““A"°P‘°°‘°’Ma“""‘°””‘° DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION WWW" ng’sefimcm, 568097,, Juddai Council of Caflfonia SUBP-01O (Rev. January 1. 2012] OF BusINEss RECORDS www.courtscagov SUBP-01 0 PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: Alexis DaCosta DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: KrzysztofSyvmla CASE NUMBER: 21CH009837 PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 1. I served this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person sewed (name): b. Address where served: c. Date of delivery: d. Time of delivery: e. (1)E \Mtness fees were paid. Amount .............. $ (2)E Copying fees were paid. Amount .............. f. Fee forservice: ................ $ 2. l received this subpoena for service on (date): 3. Person serving: . E Not a registered California process sewer. . E California sheriff or marshal. . E Registered California process server. . E Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).D Registered professional photocopier. a b c d. E Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. e f Q . E Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451. h. Name. address, telephone number. and, if applicable, county of registration and number: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: b (SIGNATURE) (For California sheriff or marshal use only) I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: y (SIGNATURE) 5”9"°‘°"‘°'-“WWW DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Page 2 of 2 OF BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHMENT 3 DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1. Documents sufficient to show all access (including but not limited to log in, log out, access the account, change a password) to Google account dacosta.alexis@mnail.com, including but not limited to date/time, IP addresses/locations/MAC address of device used, hostname of device, for the time period of January l, 2021 to the present. 2. Documents sufficient to show all access (including but not limited to log in, log out, access the account, change a password) to Google account alexisjdacosta@gmail.com, including but not limited to date/time, IP addresses/locations/MAC address of device used, hostname of device, for the time period of January 1, 2021 to the present. 3. Documents sufficient to show all access (including but not limited to log in, log out, access the account, change a password) to Google account alexis@teleportnow.io, including but not limited to date/time, IP addresses/locations/MAC address of device used, hostname of device, for the time period of January 1, 2021 to the present. 4. Documents sufficient to show details of the registration of account alexisidacosta@gmail.com, including but not limited to the date/time, IP address of a device, hostname of a device, MAC address of a device used for registering this account. 5. Documents sufficient to show all access (including but not limited to log in, log out, access the account, change a password) to Google account krz@teleportnow.io, including but not limited to date/time, IP addresses/locations/MAC address of device used, hostname of device, for the time period of January 1, 2021 to the present. 6. Documents sufficient to show details of the suspension or removal of account krz@teleportnow.io, including but not limited to the date/time, IP address of a device, hostname of a device, MAC address of a device, Google account name used for suspending or removing this account. 7. Documents sufficient to show all files (including but not limited to files on Google Drive) accessed, edited, removed and all access or file permission changes including blocking, restricting or removing access to a file byWM for the period of January 1, 2021 to present. 8. Documents sufficient to show all files (including but not limited to files on Google Drive) accessed, edited, removed and all access or file permission changes including blocking, restricting or removing access to a file by alexisjdacosta@gmail.com, for the period of January 1, 2021 to present. 9. Documents sufficient to show all files (including but not limited to files on Google Drive) accessed, edited, removed and all access or file permission changes including blocking, restricting or removing access to a file by alexis@teleportnow.io, for the period ofJanuary 1, 2021 to present. wooqmowphme wwwwmwmer-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-tr-Ir-Iv-t OOQGDO‘lv-POOND-‘OCDOONGDOTr-PCJONHO EXHIBIT B 4 DECLARATION OF DMITRY STADLIN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Dmitry Stadlin From: Christopher Walters Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 7:08 AM To: Dmitry Stadlin Cc: Christopher Walters; Lizi Jin Subject: Re: DaCosta/Sywula Dmitry, | believe the subpoena is proper, so | will not be withdrawing it. If you would like to schedule a call to discuss further, | am happy to do so. Chris On 2022-O1 -25 20:59, Dmitry Stadlin wrote: > Dear Mr. Walters, > > I’m following up on my earlier email. Did you withdraw the subpoena or > do | need to file a motion to quash? > > Best Regards, > > Dmitry Stadlin > > Attorney at Law - Partner > > STADLIN MARINHO LLP > 111 N. Market St. Ste. 300 > > Sanjose, CA 951 13 > > Tel: (408) 645-7801 - Let’s chat! [1] > Fax: (408) 645-7802 > ds@stad|inmarinho.com > > StadlinMarinho.com [2] > > From: Dmitry Stadlin > Sent: Monday,January 24, 2022 1:27 PM > To: 'Christopher Walters' ; > Christopher Walters > Subject: RE: DaCosta/Sywula > 2 > Dear Mr. Walters, > > Thank you for your email. I am in receipt of the subpoena to google. > Please consider this email as my meet and confer effort. > > Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §527.6 “there > is no provision under section 527.6 allowing for discovery, and in any > case, under the civil harassment scheme there is insufficient time in > which to conduct discovery.” (_Thomas v. > Quintero _(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, fn. 11; See generally: _Byers v. > Cathcart_ (2002) 57 Cal.App.4th at p. 811; _Diamond View Limited v. > Herz_ (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 612, 619-620, fn.8) Section 527.6, > subdivision (d) requires the trial court to “receive any testimony > that is relevant” at the hearing. The court in _Schraer _commented in > a footnote that this could be in the form of oral or written > testimony, including affidavits, declarations or deposition. (_Schraer > v. Berkeley Property_ _Owners' Assn. _(1989) 207 Cal.App.3d at p. 733, > fn. 6.) This statement is mystifying inasmuch as no case holds that > discovery is allowed under section 527.6, and the general testimonial > statute allowing for testimony in the form of affidavits, deposition, > or oral testimony was earlier found by the _Schraer _court to be > inapplicable to section 527.6 proceedings. (_Id_. at p. 731, 255 > Cal.Rptr. 453.)” (_Thomas v. Quintero _(2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 635, > 650.) > > As a result, your subpoena is improper - and also it is itself > harassing, overbroad, seeks irrelevant information, etc.. > > If you disagree, please provide me with authority authorizing > discovery in a Civil Harassment Restraining Order case. Let me know if > you intend to proceed with the subpoena. > > I would be glad to file a motion to quash, if required - but would > like to minimize unnecessary litigation and attorney’s fees. As you > are aware, once I prevail on the motion to quash, I would move for a > monetary sanction under CCP 2024.410(d) - “The court shall impose a > monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) > against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or > opposes a motion to quash a deposition notice, unless it finds that > the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification > or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction > unjust.” > 3 > I am also attaching a copy of a recent order signed in one of my Civil > Harassment Order cases, in which the Court found that there is no > right to discovery in Civil Harassment Restraining Order cases. > > Please let me know how you’d like to proceed. > > Best Regards, > > Dmitry Stadlin > > Attorney at Law - Partner > > STADLIN MARINHO LLP > 111 N. Market St. Ste. 300 > > San Jose, CA 95113 > > Tel: (408) 645-7801 - Let’s chat! [1] > Fax: (408) 645-7802 > ds@stadlinmarinho.com > > StadlinMarinho.com [2] > > From: Christopher Walters > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 1:18 PM > To: Dmitry Stadlin ; Christopher Walters > > Subject: DaCosta/Sywula > > Please find the attached subpoena going out for service today. > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__calendly.com_ds-2 > Dsmllp_12min&d=DwMGaQ&c=jIuf2QGe13CVwCCNhnnHSyGX0TfHadH8sr2VwR > kl7n8&r=fZBKFMpaVKFR_EAB2JKWanymYen2Rn_rc-ca-rHY2HY&m=VyrKsSYc > 1eVjf2kqQGIYmKjXYYd8HggSOq69M6CXK1g&s=irMHn1pyyYsMxkr8iUKDOro5nrub > b16hDnN6GJatoNo&e= > [2] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stadlinmarinho.co 4 > m_&d=DwMGaQ&c=jIuf2QGe13CVwCCNhnnHSyGX0TfHadH8sr2VwRkl7n8& > r=fZBKFMpaVKFR_EAB2JKWanymYen2Rn_rc-ca-rHY2HY&m=VyrKsSYc1eVjf2kqQG > IYmKjXYYd8HggSOq69M6CXK1g&s=vuHUg_rd2WPwjH0L7BDXLwJeVR-vidFRQxxM5o > 2jh14&e= -- Christopher L. Walters clw@walters-law-group.com (619)888-5759 www.walters-law-group.com This email may contain information that is confidential or attorney-client privileged and may constitute inside information. The contents of this email are intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are directed not to read, disclose, distribute or otherwise use this transmission. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the transmission. Delivery of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privileges.