Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 1, 202110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WALTERS LAW GROUP Christopher L. Walters, Esq. (SBN 205510) 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 888-5759 Email: clw@walters-law-gr0up.com Attorneysfor Defendant KrzysztofSywula Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/11/2021 12:13 PM Reviewed By: K. Nguyen Case #21 CH009837 Envelope: 6419265 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ALEXIS DACOSTA, an individual Plaintiff, V. KRZYSZTOF SYWULA, an individual, Defendant. Case N0. 21CH009837 DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA - T- MOBILE Date: May 25, 2021 Time: 9:00 a.m. Crtrm: 4 Judge: Hon. Erik S. Johnson DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Plaintiffs Motion to Quash (“Motion”) Defendant’s T-Mobile subpoena should be denied. The subpoena and its two document request categories are proper and well Within the scope of What is allowed under the Discovery Act. Plaintiff’s Motion is unfortunately a meandering morass of irrelevant information, misinformation, and bald conclusory arguments. The subpoena seeks relevant cell phone record information regarding Plaintiff’s efforts t0 contact Defendant Sywula, including after this Court issued the February 2, 2021 TRO orders requiring Defendant Sywula t0 stay away from and not contact Plaintiff. Any such attempts by Plaintiff (and those associated or related t0 him) t0 contact Defendant Sywula, including showing up at Defendant Sywula’s prior San Jose residence, would undermine and contradict Plaintiff’s alleged harassment claims and would also tend t0 show whether Plaintiff (and others) are engaged in efforts t0 get Defendant Sywula t0 Violate the current TRO orders. Plaintiff s premature and procedural defect argument, privacy and burdensome/expense/intrusiveness objections, and the Stored Communications Act argument are all meritless and not supported by any actual evidence. Indeed, Plaintiff’s Motion and his supporting declaration are merely conclusory and wild conjecture. They lack any sort 0f facts or legal bases t0 support the Motion’s purported arguments. In that regard, the Motion is frivolous and should have never been filed. The Court should deny the Motion and order that T-Mobile can provide the requested information. Additionally, the Court should order Plaintiff DaCosta t0 pay Defendant Sywula $4,612.50 in sanctions. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND It is important for the Court to understand the relationship between these two parties, and other pending litigation matters. Plaintiff and Defendant are co-owners, and officers, directors, managers, 0f two companies. There is a business dispute between the Parties relating to those companies, and that is the basis for Plaintiff s allegations of harassment. Plaintiff hired counsel t0 represent these two companies and a lawsuit was filed in the Northern District 0f California. Exh. A. Further, counsel in that matter filed an ex parte application for a restraining order. Exh. B. This request was ultimately granted in part -1- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 relating t0 Mr. DaCosta’s right t0 access company data, files and systems. The Court did not grant the further request relating t0 a gag order (non-contact With company personnel). EXh. C. Counsel in the federal matter has apparently been representing Mr. DaCosta personally. This includes the filing 0f the instant motion which appears to have been ghost-written by attorneys. On February 1, 2021, Plaintiff DaCosta initiated this action by seeking a civil harassment temporary restraining order (“TRO”) alleging that since January 12, 2021 to the present, Defendant Sywula has harassed Plaintiff - specifically, Plaintiff makes various allegations regarding how Defendant Sywula, who is Plaintiff s business partner and a 49% co-owner oftheir business (Teleport Mobility), has interfered With their business and intellectual property, including by emailing investors and accessing and controlling company servers/software. However, in addition t0 being a 49% shareholder of Teleport Mobility, and into January 2021, Defendant Sywula was also company’s Chief Technology Officer, responsible for the development, administration, and maintenance 0f all company networks, computer systems, and software - i.e., he was allowed t0 access, control, and administer all 0f these networks, systems, and software. Plaintiffs TRO application does not allege 0r provide proof that Defendant Sywula made any physical threats t0 0r against Plaintiff 0r his family or that Defendant Sywula is physically stalking Plaintiff 0r his family. There are n0 allegations 0r evidence that Defendant Sywula sent any communications (of any kind) to Plaintiff or Plaintiffs family members physically threatening Plaintiff 0r his family or that indicated Defendant Sywula is stalking Plaintiff 0r his family. A11 0f this is to emphasize that this is a business dispute and not some case of stalking or harassment. The TRO application plainly shows this is merely a business dispute and Plaintiff is using the court system to bully Defendant Sywula by creating a false narrative and twisting business dispute facts into a desperate attempt to claim (falsely) civil harassment to further inflict harm against Defendant Sywula. And, the Court should not buy into it. Presently, the order t0 show cause hearing is set forth May 25, 2021. In order t0 prepare for and present evidence at that hearing, Defendant Sywula needs to obtain relevant discovery regarding Plaintiff’s efforts t0 contact Defendant Sywula, including Whether he (0r others Plaintiff directed) showed up at 0r were surveilling Defendant Sywula’s former San Jose residence. As part 0f -2- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant’s efforts, and on April 1, 2021, counsel for Defendant Sywula, issued business records subpoenas t0 both T-Mobile and Verizon with the following two document categories: Documents and records sufficient t0 show the location and coordinates for the use and presence 0f the phones associated with phone number (408) 466-9922 for the time period of January 1, 2021 to the present. Documents sufficient show each time the number (408) 466-9922 called the following phone numbers: (858) 226-4582; (858) 750-0290; and (858) 257-8906. Defendant Sywula issued the subpoenas so he could obtain relevant information regarding the efforts 0f Plaintiff (and his family) t0 contact and speak With Sywula including after the Court’s February 2, 2021 order granting the TRO. The cell records, including related location information, would tend t0 show ifPlaintiffand others made efforts to contact Defendant Sywula, including going t0 Defendant’s prior San Jose residence. Such information would tend t0 undermine 0r negate Plaintiff s basis for his TRO, and it would tend to show that Plaintiff is engaged in efforts t0 get Defendant t0 Violate the current TRO orders. The subpoenas do not seek the content 0f any text 0r other types of communications - rather, merely where Plaintiff used his cell phone and When he and those working with him phoned Defendant. The subpoena was properly issued and served. It seeks relevant information. Plaintiff s obj ections and other arguments are meritless. The Court should deny the Motion and order T-Mobile t0 respond. III. THE SUBPOENA SEEKS RELEVANT INFORMATION California courts make clear that discovery provisions in the Discovery Act are t0 be liberally construed in favor of disclosure. Flagship Theaters of Palm Des., LLC V. Century Theaters, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal. App.4th 1366, 1383. Emerson Elec. Co. V Sup. Ct. (1997) 16 Ca1.4th 1101, 1107; Greyhound Corp. V Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355. Under the Discovery Act, Code 0f Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 2017.010, [a]ny party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant t0 the subj ect matter involved in the pending action 0r t0 the determination 0f any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 the discovery 0f admissible evidence. “Relevant t0 the subj ect matter” is broader than relevancy t0 the issues Which determines admissibility 0f evidence at trial. Weil and Brown, Cal Prac. Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (TRG 2010) -3- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fl8z66 (citing Bridgestone-Firestone Inc. V. Sup. Ct. (1992) 7 Ca1.App.4th 1384,1392). A party can discover irrelevant matters as long as their revelation may lead t0 the discovery of admissible evidence. Dodge, Warren & Peters Insurance Services, Inc. V. Riley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1414. The phrase “subject matter involved in the pending action” has been defined t0 include not only the acts that constitute the cause 0f action, but also circumstances and physical facts out of Which the action arises, including the property, contract, 0r other things in dispute. Darbee V. Sup. Ct. (1962) 208 Ca1.App.2d 680, 688. Here, Plaintiff claims alleged harassment because Defendant Sywula (Plaintiff’s business partner and 49% owner 0f Teleport Mobility) interfered With company business, networks, systems, intellectual property, and because Defendant Sywula contacted company investors. [See TRO Application]. On February 2, 2021, the Court issued the TRO, with stay away and n0 contact orders. There is an upcoming hearing regarding a permanent restraining order. This Will be the first time that Defendant has been able t0 present his side 0f the story and evidence t0 rebut Plaintiffs allegations (since Plaintiff failed t0 serve Defendant before obtaining the temporary restraining order). Defendant’s position is that the allegations are merit-less and that this entire action is designed t0 harass and intimidate Defendant t0 gain control of the company the two Parties jointly own. In fact, Plaintiff is the one Who has been stalking and harassing Defendant. Whether Plaintiff engaged in efforts to contact Defendant, including showing up at 0r near, or surveilling, Defendant’s former San Jose residence, would be relevant t0 the purported harassment claims and the foundation for the same. Indeed, if Plaintiff engaged in efforts t0 contact Sywula, after the Court’s February 2, 2021 TRO orders, then that would be directly relevant t0 the veracity and substance of Plaintiff s alleged harassment claims. Thus, the subpoena seeks relevant information well within the scope 0f the Discovery Act. IV. DEFENDANT’S SUBPOENA IS NOT PREMATURE OR PROCEDURALLY DEFECTIVE Plaintiff claims Defendant Sywula cannot issue a subpoena because Defendant has not been served yet 0r has not formally appeared in this action - citing t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §2025.210(a) and California Shellfish, Inc. Plaintiff is wrong and the fact that Defendant has not yet -4- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 made an appearance is due exclusively t0 the fault 0f Plaintiff (and Defendant believes this was intentional t0 prevent this Court from hearing the truth of Plaintiff s unfounded allegations). Defendant Sywula is obviously aware 0f and has now received the TRO papers - hence the April 1, 2020 subj ect subpoenas. The fact that Plaintiffhas failed t0 properly serve Defendant Sywula is not Defendant’s fault 0r problem.1 Indeed, PlaintiffDaCosta has had the specific address 0fwhere Defendant Sywula is living in Poland, since March 12, 2021 and can serve him there through the appropriate channels. [Declaration 0f Christopher L. Waltersfl 3]. The discovery timing issue set forth in CCP §§2025.210 - when a plaintiff and defendant can serve deposition notices - and addressed by California Shellfish, Inc., is primarily concerned With sufficient notice by a plaintiff to a defendant such that the defendant has an opportunity t0 address and respond to a deposition notice as necessary. Specifically, in California Shellfish, Inc., the court stated: Allowing a plaintiff t0 initiate discovery by deposition subpoena pursuant t0 section 2020, subdivision (d), before serving any defendant with the summons and complaint, and without notice 0fthe deposition t0 any defendant, 0r any other party in the action is fraught with the danger for abuse recognized by our Supreme Court years ago. “If a party were allowed t0 compel an independent Witness t0 give his deposition, all without notice t0 the opposing party, a situation not contemplated by the discovery statutes would result. For then a party might resort to all manner of discovery without adequate protection t0 his opponent, so long as he intended t0 forego any formal introduction 0f the material at time 0f trial. This would present an intolerable situation.” (Lund V. Superior Court (1964) 61 Ca1.2d 698, 71 1, 39 Cal.Rptr. 891, 394 P.2d 707.) A calculating litigant might conclude that it could benefitfrom the opportunity to access information it might not otherwise have if an adversary were 0n notice 0fthe litigation and able t0 raise valid objections. California Shellfish, Inc. V. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 16, 23-24. Thus, the concern is Whether a defendant has notice an opportunity to address the applicable deposition notice. While Plaintiff also cites to Unzipped Apparel, LLC, the case is irrelevant as it applies t0 Whether the plaintiff timely filed a motion t0 compel under 60-day deadline set forth in CCP §2025.480(b). Unzipped Apparel, LLC V. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123, 128, 132-135. The only Party Who has proceed “Without notice t0 the opposing party” in this action is DaCosta. 1 Defendant reserves all rights and objections regarding Plaintiff” s failure t0 effectuate proper service. This includes objections to this Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant. -5- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Additionally, once Defendant Sywula discovered the substance 0f the TRO and related hearing dates, he served the April 1“ subpoenas in order t0 timely obtain information t0 prepare a defense for the upcoming May 25, 2021 hearing. Further, Plaintiff was properly served With the subpoenas (and the notice t0 consumer) as evidenced by Plaintiff filing the instant motion to quash. Plaintiff” s motion t0 quash is attempting to use CCP 2025.210(a) as a sword, when that is not what it is intended for, t0 try and prevent Defendant Sywula from getting evidence to prepare a defense against Plaintiff’s allegations. In fact, if the Court grants the motion to quash 0n the basis of CCP § 2025.210(a) and Defendant’s lack of a formal appearance in the case, such a decision would run counter t0 the intent 0f that statutory section. Again, the intent behind CCP § 2025.210(a) is t0 make sure the defendant has proper notice of the lawsuit such that the defendant can address and respond t0 deposition notices. In this case, Plaintiff had notice and in fact did file objections (and the instant Motion t0 Quash). Therefore, the subpoena is not premature 0r defective. Plaintiff should not be allowed to improperly use the Discovery Act as a sword t0 prevent Defendant from obtaining evidence t0 use for his defense. V. THE PRIVACY OBJECTION IS MERITLESS Plaintiff s privacy obj ection and related arguments fail t0 present actual 0r legitimate factual and legal argument. As noted above, the subpoena seeks documents/records “sufficient t0 show the location and coordinates for the use and presence 0f the phones associated With phone number (408) 466-9922 for the time period of January 1, 2021 to the present”, and “sufficient to show each time the number (408) 466-9922 called the following phone numbers: (858) 226-4582; (858) 750-0290; and (858) 257-8906.” Defendant Sywula has already explained above Why this information is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. Plaintiff has the burden 0f proving to the Court, With admissible evidence and citation to supporting legal authority, that his objections are appropriate. Coy V. Sup. Ct. (1962) 58 Cal.2d 210, 220;fl also Fairmont Ins. Co. V. Sup. Ct. (2000) 22 Ca1.4th 245, 255. Plaintiff has failed to justify the privacy objection. Under the California Constitution, all people have a constitutionally protected -6- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 right t0 privacy.E Cal. Const. Art. I, § 1. T0 prevent a constitutionally protected invasion ofprivacy, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a reasonable expectation 0f privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant constituting a serious invasion ofprivacy.” TBG Ins. Services Corp. V. Superior Court (2002) 96 Ca1.App.4th 443, 449 (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Life Technologies Corp. V. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 640, 652. Plaintiff’s Motion and declaration have failed t0 show any evidence 0f a legally protected privacy interest or a reasonable expectation 0f privacy in Where a cell phone was previously used 0r When a cell phone previously called certain numbers. Indeed, there can be no legitimate privacy interest in that information 0r an expectation 0fprivacy. This is especially true in this matter as Defendant seeks information relating directly t0 him and his family: did Plaintiff make phones calls t0 Defendant’s phone 0r use the phone near Defendant’s home. Even ifthe Court finds that Plaintiff established a privacy interest and a reasonable expectation privacy (which Plaintiff has not), Plaintiff certainly has not shown any evidence that the requested documents “c0nstitut[e] a serious invasion of privacy.” TBG Ins. Services Corp. 96 Cal.App.4th at 449. Plaintiff goes into a rather dramatic diatribe in both the Motion and his declaration claiming that his and his family’s lives are somehow in danger and that Defendant Sywula is some sort of sinister character. Yet, Plaintiff has failed t0 show any actual evidence to even remotely support his Wild conjecture. Indeed, Plaintiff’s own TRO application makes no such claims. [This is all especially true When the court considers that Defendant is currently located in Poland and has had n0 recent contact With Plaintiff] Thus, Plaintiff has failed t0 meet his burden 0f providing this court With actual evidence and legal authority that shows why the substance 0f the two document requests even implicate a privacy concern. The Court should therefore ignore and overrule the privacy obj ection. VI. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO SHOW THAT THE BURDEN, EXPENSE, AND INTRUSIVENESS OF THE SUBPOENA OUTWEIGHS THE LIKELIHOOD THE INFORMATION SOUGHT WILL LEAD TO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. Defendant has already established that the two document categories in the subpoena seek relevant information. Plaintiff has the burden 0f establishing With evidence and legal authority his alleged burden, expense, and intrusiveness objection. Plaintiff fails t0 satisfy this burden (and -7- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 certainly not t0 a degree to prevent discovery of evidence that would be absolutely relevant to this matter: Which of the Parties was stalking which). Generally, unduly burdensome, harassing, and oppressive objections Will not be sustained unless a party provides admissible proof of the exact nature 0f the burden 0r oppression. West Pico Furniture Co. V. Sup. Ct. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 (“An objection based 0n burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required”);fl also Mead Reinsurance C0. V. Sup. Ct. (1986) 188 Ca1.App.3d 313, 320-321. Where there is n0 such evidence, the objection must be overruled. Williams V. Sup. Ct. (2017) 3 Ca1.5th 531, 552. Again, and as already addressed above in this Opposition, Plaintiff” s Motion and declaration are long 0n overly dramatic conj ecture, and short (actually non-eXistent) 0n facts, evidence, and legal authority t0 support his arguments and objections - including as t0 show how the two document requests in the subpoena are burdensome, expensive, and intrusive. There is n0 cost, burden, intrusiveness or otherwise t0 Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court should reject and overrule these objections. VII. THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SUBPOENA DOCUMENT REQUESTS. The subpoena document requests ask for the following: Documents and records sufficient t0 show the location and coordinates for the use and presence of the phones associated With phone number (408) 466-9922 for the time period of January 1, 2021 t0 the present. Documents sufficient show each time the number (408) 466-9922 called the following phone numbers: (858) 226-4582; (858) 750-0290; and (858) 257-8906. The document requests do not seek the content 0f any text messages 0r other electronic communications. Accordingly, the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) does not apply. Specifically, cell providers like T-Mobile (what the SCA defines as an “electronic communication service” - 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a); Quon V. Arch Wireless Operating C0., Inc. (9th Cir. 2008) 529 F.3d 892, 901)(reversed and remanded 0n other grounds)) “shall not knowingly divulge to any person 0r entity the contents 0f a communication while in electronic storage by that service,” 18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1) (Emphasis added); Negro V. Sup. Ct. (2014) 230 Ca1.App.4th 879, 888 (“The Act states that a provider 0f an “electronic communication service shall not knowingly divulge the contents -8- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of a communication While in electronic storage by that service....” (18 U.S.C. § 2702(a)(1).”). Significantly, as long as the subpoena does not seek the contents 0f communications, it is valid, and the SCA does not apply. Mintz V. Mark Bartelstein & Associates, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2014) 885 F.Supp.2d 987, 992-994. (decision denies, in part, motion t0 quash subpoena under Stored Communications Act because several document requests to AT&T did not ask for the content 0f communications - “As set forth above, Category Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, and 10 seek only subscriber information and not the content 0fany communications. (Joint Stip., Horn Decl., Exh. A at 31- 32). As Defendants are not a governmental entity, AT &T may disclose this information t0 them consistent with the SCA.” [emphasis added]). Them decision also found that cell site location information is not “content” under the SCA. I_d. Other courts have also found that the following is not considered “content” under the SCA and thus should be subject t0 production by electronic service providers: (i) Identification of a subscriber. E, gg, In re Zynga Privacy Litigation (9th Cir. 2014) 750 F.3d 1098; Jessup Morgan V. American Online, Inc. (ED. Mich. 1998) 20 F.Supp.2d 1105 (E.D. Mich. 1998); and (ii) Metadata. fl, gg, SVS. Prods. & Solutions V. Scramlin (E.D. Mich. 2014) 2014 WL 3894385. Thus, the Court here cannot deny Defendant access to the information under the SCA as it is not applicable. Neither of the two document requests seek any content from any communications. VIII. DACOSTA IS NOT ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS - DEFENDANT SYWULA IS ENTITLED TO SANCTIONS. DaCosta seeks sanctions under CCP § 2023.030(a) and under CCP §1987.2. CCP §1987.2, relating t0 motions t0 quash subpoenas, states, “the court may in its discretion award the amount 0f the reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion, including reasonable attorney's fees, ifthe court finds the motion was made 0r opposed in bad faith 0r without substantial justification 0r that one 0r more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” As an initial matter, DaCosta represents himself and he is not an attorney, and therefore DaCosta did not incur any “attorneys’ fees” in preparing and drafting the Motion. The Motion refers to a Teleport Mobility attorney, Frederic G. Ludwig, attempting to meet and confer With Defendant Sywula’s attorney regarding the subject subpoena (Motion at Section II(B), p3), but there is n0 declaration 0r other -9- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 evidence that Plaintiff DaCosta is represented by legal counsel or that legal counsel did any work 0n the Motion. Further, the Motion does not set forth any legal authority that a pro per party can obtain “attorneys’ fees” as sanctions under any Discovery Act statute for the pro per party personally drafting and filing a discovery motion. Further, the Motion does not set forth any legal authority that a pro per party can unilaterally set an hourly rate Without any basis or information justifying the alleged hourly rate - here, Plaintiff asserts a $100 per hour rate, but provides no legal authority or factual basis for this asserted hourly rate. Finally, Defendant’s opposition is more than justified and proper. There has been m0 misuse of the discovery process. Unlike Plaintiff, Defendant has established a legal and factual basis for the subject subpoenas and has established that Plaintiff’s objections and arguments are meritless and nothing more than Wild and dramatic conj ecture. Therefore, Plaintiff’ s requests for sanctions should be denied. Defendant Sywula, on the other hand, is entitled t0 sanctions under CCP §1987.2, as Plaintiff has n0 reasonable basis for his Motion - Plaintiff s arguments are nothing more than conj ecture and he fails to establish any reasonable legal basis for his arguments, e.g. the SCA does not apply because the two document categories d0 not even remotely seek any communication content; and Plaintiff failed t0 show even remotely an actual legitimate privacy interest, a reasonable expectation ofprivacy, or any serious intrusion pertaining t0 the two document categories in the subject subpoena. The purpose 0fthe Motion t0 Quash was t0 prevent the disclosure ofevidenceprior t0 the hearing 0n the restraining order. While Plaintiff has achieved that purpose, it was improper and unlawful. Plaintiff should be sanctioned for the filing 0f this improper motion. Defendant Sywula has incurred $4,612.50 in attorneys’ fees for having t0 prepare and file the Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motions to Quash. [Walters Dec., 1] 4.]. Thus the Court should award that amount in sanctions to Defendant Sywula. IX. CONCLUSION As set forth above, the subject subpoena seeks relevant information. It is not premature 0r procedurally defective. It does not trigger, affect, 0r intrude upon any privacy interest - indeed there _ 10 _ DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 is n0 privacy interest given the scope 0f the document categories. The subpoena document categories are also not burdensome, expensive, 0r intrusive. Plaintiff’ s Motion is nothing more than wild conjecture and discovery gamesmanship. It should be denied and the Court should award sanctions against Plaintiff for his frivolous Motion in the amount 0f $4,612.50. DATED: May 11, 2021 Submitted by, WALTERS LAW GROUP s/Christopher L. Walters, Esq. CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS, ESQ. Attorneysfor Defendant KrzysztofSywula -11- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare: 1. I am over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. My business address is 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor, San Diego, California 92101 Which is located in the county where the service described below took place. 2. On May 11, 2021, I served the following documents: DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA - T-MOBILE (X) BY OVERNIGHT EXPRESS DELIVERY. I deposited said document(s) in a box 0r other facility regularly maintained by the express service carrier providing overnight express delivery pursuant t0 Code 0f Civil Procedure §1013c. addressed t0 the parties listed on the attached service list. I certify and declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 11, 2021, at San Diego, California. s/Christopher L. Walters, Esq. CHRISTOPHER L. WALTERS, ESQ. -12- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SERVICE LIST DaCosta v. Sywula, Case N0.: 21CH009837 PLAINTIFF: Alexis J. DaCosta (pro se) dacosta.alexis@gmail.com 1292 Kifer Road, Suite 802 Sunnyvale, California 94086 Telephone: 858-736-7618 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: WALTERS LAW GROUP Christopher L. Walters, Esq. 1901 First Avenue, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92 1 01 Telephone: (619) 888-5759 Email: clw@walters-1aw-group.com Attorneysfor Defendant -13- DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH T-MOBILE SUBPOENA