Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 1, 2021wooqmml-POONH wwwwmwmer-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-tr-Ir-Iv-t OOQGDO‘lv-POOND-‘OCDOONGDOTr-PCJONHO Dmitry Stadlin, SBN 302361 STADLIN MARINHO LLP E'ec"°"if‘a"y Fi'ed 111 N. Market Street. Suite 300 by SUperlor court Of CA’ San Jose, California 95113 county 0f santa Clara: Tel: (408) 645-7801 Oh 2/7/2022 1:02 PM Fax: .(408) 645-7802 . Reviewed By: K. Nguyen Emall: ds@stadhnmar1nh0.com case #21CH009337 Attorneys for Petitioner EnvelOPG: 8232143 ALEXIS DACOSTA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALEXIS DACOSTA Case N0.: 21CH009837 Petitioner, PETITIONER ALEXIS DACOSTA’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT And, KRZYSZTOF SYWULA’S EXPARTE REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Alexis DaCosta (“Petitioner”), by and through his counsel 0f record, files this opposition t0 Respondent Krzysztof Sywula (“Respondent”)’s request t0 continue trial set for March 21, 2022. Respondent failed t0 show good cause that warrants a continuance 0f trial set for March 21, 2022. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS On February 1, 2021, Petitioner filed this instant Civil Harassment Restraining Order (“CHRO”) request against Respondent alleged Respondent stolen Teleport’s intellectual property, software, and other business-related documents and files. Petitioner further alleged Respondent impersonated him t0 shut down cloud-servers. The court granted Petitioner a Temporary Restraining Order against Respondent and set hearing for March 23, 2021. 1 PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S EXPARTE REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL wooqmowphme wwwwmwmer-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-tr-Ir-Iv-t OOQGDO‘lv-POOND-‘OCDOONGDOTr-PCJONHO Immediately after, the Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office made three service 0f process attempts 0n Respondent but was not successful. On about March 12, 2021, Petitioner’s civil attorney received an email from Respondent’s attorney telling him t0 send this CHRO request t0 Polska and Petitioner’s civil attorney did so on March 24, 2021. Because personal service 0f the CHRO was not successful prior t0 the first hearing on March 23, 2021, the court continued the hearing t0 May 25, 2021 t0 allow additional time for Petitioner t0 serve Respondent. Soon after, Petitioner hired a private investigator t0 track Respondent’s whereabouts in order t0 effectuate service of the CHRO request on Respondent. It was discovered that Respondent was employed by Intel. On about April 2, 2021, the private investigator went t0 Intel headquarters and served Respondent With the CHRO request. Prior t0 effectuating service 0n Respondent, Respondent’s counsel served Petitioner two subpoenas for cellphone records from T-Mobile and Verizon on about March 30, 2021. Petitioner Who was Pro. Per. at the time filed two Motions to Quash the subpoenas. On May 25, 2021, the court denied Petitioner’s Motion t0 Quash and ordered a protective order t0 be signed by the Parties and the Court. On about July 19, 2021, Petitioner filed objection to the protective order. The court heard the matter on August 10, 2021 and continued the hearing t0 October 19, 2021. On October 19, 2021, Respondent filed a cross-request for CHRO against Petitioner. Respondent’s cross-request was denied. Since then, the court continued the hearing twice more. On January 11, 2022, the court set this matter for trial 0n March 21, 2022. On January 24, 2021, Petitioner received an email notice of a Deposition Subpoena for Production 0f Business Records t0 Google, LLC. And requested items irrelevant t0 this underlying matter. After meet and confer With Respondent’s counsel, Petitioner filed his motion t0 quash said subpoena. The court set hearing of this motion for the same day as the trial - March 21, 2022. 2 PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S EXPARTE REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL wooqmowphme wwwwmwmer-II-tr-Iv-II-tr-Iv-tr-Ir-Iv-t OOQGDO‘lv-POOND-‘OCDOONGDOTr-PCJONHO After receiving the motion date, Petitioner served the notice of motion t0 Respondent. Soon after, Respondent requested Petitioner agree t0 continue trial due t0 Petitioner’s motion being set for the same day as the trial. Petitioner declined t0 continue the trial. On February 7, 2022, Respondent filed his request to continue trial. III. ARGUMENT A. Continuance of Trial is not Warranted Pursuant t0 California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.1332 (C), Grounds for Continuance, the court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing 0f good cause requiring the continuance pursuant t0 grounds: “(1) The unavailability of an essential lay 0r expert witness because 0f death, illness, 0r other excusable circumstances; (2) The unavailability 0f a party because 0f death, illness, 0r other excusable circumstances; (3) The unavailability 0f trial counsel because 0f death, illness, 0r other excusable circumstances; (4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only Where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests 0f justice; (5) The addition of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; 0r (B) The other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party's involvement in the case; (6) A party's excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; 0r (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result 0f Which the case is not ready for trial.” (Emphasis Added) (California Rules 0f Court, Rule 3.1332(0).) None 0f these are outlined in Respondent’s Request. Indeed, it is Respondent’s issuance 0f subpoena duces tecum - requesting information about Petitioner’s email accounts in direct Violation 0f the current temporary order - that is the reason that a Motion to Quash had to be filed at all. Respondent should not get the benefit 0f filing SDTS Without a basis, as a means 0f trying t0 provide good cause for his own continuance request. 3 PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S EXPARTE REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL ©OOQOUOTr-PODNI-l NNNNNNNNNr-II-tr-Ir-II-tr-Ir-Ir-tr-II-t mflmmfiwNI-‘OCDOONGDmb-PCDNHO IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein above, Petitioner respectfully requests this court t0 deny Respondent’s request t0 continue trial set for March 21, 2022. Dated: February 7, 2022. Respectfully submitted, Dmitry Stadlin, Esq. Attorney for Petitioner ALEXIS DACOSTA 4 PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT’S EXPARTE REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL