Motion Quash

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.February 24, 2021

DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 CV376460 Santa Clara - Civil NIV V. DAVIDOVICH, ESQ. (State Bar N0. 247328) EDMUND J. SHERMAN, ESQ. (State Bar N0. 155768) DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 Telephone: (8 1 8) 66 1 -2420 Facsimile: (818) 301-5131 E-Mai1(s): NiV@David0VichLaW.com Ed@DaVid0VichLaw.com Y. Che Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/1 0/2021 5:49 PM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #21 CV376460 Envelope: 6414345 Attorneys for Defendants VAHE TASHJIAN; 5150 ECR GROUP, LLC; DUTCHINTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC; 5150 GROUP MANAGER, LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, OLD COURTHOUSE JANET BOCEK, GARY LAINE, JUDY LAINE, TOM PARE, DIANA PARE, CATHERINE HUNG, TOD FUKUSHIMA, LOURDES MARTINEZ, APN4, LLC, HEYMAN FAMILY TRUST, and SHORESIDE DIRECTED TRUST, Plaintiffs, V. VAHE TASHJIAN, an individual; DUTCHINTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited liability company; 5150 ECR GROUP, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; 5150 ECR GROUP MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. 2 1CV376460 DEFENDANTS VAHE TASHJIAN, 5150 ECR GROUP, LLC, 5150 ECR GROUP MANAGER, LLC, AND DUTCHINTS DEVELOPMENT LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ON MGO OF SAN JOSE, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; SEPARATE STATEMENT; DECLARATION OF VAHE TASHJIAN; DECLARATION OF EDMUND J. SHERMAN Action Filed: February 25, 2021 Trial Date: None Set [Assigned t0 the Honorable Audra Ibarra - Department “12”] Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS VGZ Dept.20 9:00am 8-17-21 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 8'17'21 ., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Departmenhflzog" the above-entitled Court located at 191 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113, Defendants Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development, LLC, 5150 ECR Group Manager, LLC, and 5150 ECR Group, LLC, (“Tashjian Defendants”) Will and hereby do move for an order quashing service of the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena Duces Tecum” or “SDT”) served in this action by Plaintiffs Janet Bocek, Gary Laine, Judy Laine, Tom Pare et. a1. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) on MGO of San Jose in this action. This motion is based upon C.C.P. § 1985.3, C.C.P. § 1985.6, C.C.P. § 1987.1, Code ofCiVil Procedure sections 2025.410, subdivision (d) and 2025.420, subdivision (d), Code of Civil Procedure 2023.010, and is predicated upon the grounds that the subpoena is overly broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, seeks protected and privileged information and in general that the subpoena is intended to annoy, harass, and embarrass the Tashjian Defendants. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Tashjian Defendants will seek monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their attorney 0f record, Dan W. Ballesteros, in the sum 0f $3,035 pursuant to C.C.P. § 1987.2 and C.C.P. § 2023.010. This Motion is further based upon this notice; the attached Memorandum 0f Points and Authorities; upon the records and files in this action; and upon such further evidence and argument as may be presented prior t0 0r at the time 0f hearing on the motion. DATED: May 10, 2021 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLPg L/ By: EDMUND J. SHERMAN Attorneys for Defendants VAHE TASHJIAN, DUTCHINTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 5 150 ECR GROUP, LLC and 5 150 ECR GROUP MANAGER, LLC NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTS This case arises out of a Complaint filed by Plaintiffs who are minority investors in a development project regarding a real property located at 5150 E1 Camino Real, Los Altos, California. The property located at 5150 E1 Camino Real is a commercial office building. The investment plan was to demolish the office building and build housing 0n the property, once entitlements to build residential housing were obtained. This process was estimated to take two years. Plaintiffs invested and became members 0f 5150 ECR Group, LLC. The gravamen of the Complaint is that 5 150 ECR Group, LLC failed to sell the real property at issue, when, according to the investors, it should have been sold. As a result of the purported failure t0 sell the property, Plaintiffs claim to have been damaged. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants “diluted” Plaintiffs’ Class A membership units in the 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC by issuing new shares in the company. While the Complaint alleges a cause of “breach of contract” based on this alleged “dilution,” Plaintiffs fail t0 set forth in the Complaint that the Series C and D shares were issued with the consent of the membership, by an over 67% vote of the membership, as required by the Operating Agreement. N0 new membership shares were issued surreptitiously or Without member consent, as the Complaint infers. The fact the membership voted for issuance has been admitted by Plaintiff Janet Bocek in Declarations filed with this Court. The Complaint alleges that the investments were t0 be for a tWO-year term, and that Plaintiffs invested in the project in April, 2018. (Complaint, 1] 20). The two-year term was set because the proj ect entitlements take that long t0 be obtained. Despite the full knowledge that their investments were not to be paid for at least two years, and that any sale 0f the property was not proposed to occur before the two-year entitlement period, Plaintiffs allege in the Complaint, as a basis 0f their causes 0f action, that the property was not sold in 2018 or 2019. In March, 2020, the Covid pandemic hit. The Covid pandemic caused well known and widespread business disruption, including thousands 0f people losing their jobs, and a chill on investment. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Issuance 0f Subpoenas On April 6, 2021, attorney Daniel Ballesteros, Esq. of the firm Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel signed and issued a total 0f 6 Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records (SDTS) in Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563, Which is a case in Which Mr. Ballesteros does not represent any parties. (Declaration ofEdmund J. Sherman [“Sherman Decl.”] One of the SDTs was directed to seeking documents from MGO of San Jose, which is the subject 0f this motion. The SDT issued t0 MGO of San Jose set forth the date ofMay 12, 2021 for the production 0f the documents. Upon being notified that the SDT was issued in a case in which Mr. Ballesteros does not represent any party, Mr. Ballesteros has taken the position that setting forth case number 21CV378563 on the SDTs was a “scrivenors” error, and that he intended to issue the SDTs in the instant case, case number 21CV376460, and that he will not withdraw the SDT. (Sherman Decl. and EXh. 3 thereto.) Mr. Ballesteros considers the issue of his having issued the SDTs with a case number in Which he represents no parties t0 be “exalting form over substance.” (Sherman Decl. and Exh). Therefore, as Mr. Ballesteros contends that the SDTS were issued in this case, the instant Motion t0 Quash the SDTS is being filed in this case. Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563 was filed by LCC Warehouse III LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, who is an alleged secured mortgage lender with an alleged Deed 0f Trust on real property located at 5 1 50 E1 Camino Real, Los Altos, California (the “E1 Camino Real Property”). LCC Warehouse III, LLC is the sole Plaintiff, and is represented by the firm Duane Morris, LLP, by lead attorney Megan Leary, and other attorneys from the Duane Morris, LLP firm who are listed 0n the pleadings. (Sherman Decl.). On behalf 0f his clients, Mr. Ballesteros attempted t0 intervene in the 21CV378563 case, but leave t0 intervene has never been granted. Notice To Mr. Ballesteros T0 Withdraw The Subpoenas On May 4, 2021, newly hired counsel for 5150 ECR Group, LLC, Vahe Tashjian, and Dutchints Development, LLC sent written correspondence t0 Mr. Ballesteros, demanding that he Withdraw the SDTS that he had issued on April 6, 2021. (Sherman Decl. and Exh. 1 thereto.) The -4- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 correspondence set forth that Mr. Ballesteros had n0 legal power t0 issue the SDTs, as he did not represent any party in case number 21CV378563 at the time the SDTS were issued, and still does not represent any party in that case. Mr. Ballesteros responded that he considered the issuance of the SDTS With the t0 be a “scrivenors” error, and refiJsed to withdraw the Subpoenas. (Sherman Decl. fl 7.) Scope 0f the Subpoena and Protected Documents Sought As Will be set forth fully in this Motion, the SDT at issue herein seek production of personal financial records 0f a consumer, Vahe Tashjian, Which are protected under the California Constitution’s right t0 privacy, and documents that are protected by the right of business privacy. In addition t0 seeking documents protected by the right of privacy, the scope of the SDT is entirely overbroad, not reasonably limited in time or scope, seek documents Which are not relevant to the subj ect t0 the subj ect matter 0f the action nor reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 admissible evidence, and the SDT has clearly been drafted to annoy, embarrass, oppress, and harass defendants, particularly Vahe Tashjian. The SDT seeks production 0f documents from time periods that are well before Plaintiffs ever became investors in the proj ect, well before any time period that the Complaint alleges (on “information and belief” and with n0 supporting allegations) that 5150 ECR Group, LLC became “insolvent,” and well before the running of the two-year scope of Plaintiff” s investments, as alleged in the Complaint. II. THE SUBPOENA SHOULD BE QUASHED AS IT ISSUED IN A CASE IN WHICH ISSUING ATTORNEY DOES NOT REPRESENT A PARTY. California Code 0f Civil Procedure 1985 (c) provides as follows: “An attorney at law Who is the attorney 0f record in an action or proceeding, may sign and issue a subpoena duces tecum t0 require production of the matters or things described in the subpoena.” Simply put, the SDT has been issued by an attorney in a case in Which the attorney is not a participant, and represents no parties. The SDT is void ab initio, and the Court should so declare and quash the SDT entirely. In the event, however, that the Court regards the improper case number as a mere -5- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “scrivenors error,” the Court should quash entirely, or modify the scope of the SDT, for the further reasons set forth herein. III. A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION AND A CONSUMER MAY SEEK TO OUASH A BUSINESS RECORDS SUBPOENA. California Code of Civil Procedure 1987.1 provides as follows: “(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance 0f a Witness 0r the production 0f books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, 0r at the trial 0f an issue therein, 0r at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), 0r upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity t0 be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate t0 protect the person from unreasonable 0r oppressive demands, including unreasonable Violations of the right of privacy 0f the person.” Subsection (b) provides as follows: “(b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3” The instant motion is brought by parties t0 this action, and by a party-consumer, Vahe Tashjian, Whose documents and information is sought in the respective subpoenas. IV. THE SUBPOENA TO MGO SEEKS PRODUCTION OF PERSONAL RECORDS OF A CONSUMER. Code of Civil Procedure 1985.3(a)(1) provides that “’[p]ersonal records’ means the original, any copy 0f books, documents, other writings, or electronically stored information pertaining t0 a consumer and Which are maintained by any ‘Witness’ Which is a. . accountant. . .” (emphasis added.) Code of Civil Procedure 1985.3(a)(2) defines a “consumer” as “any individual, partnership of five 0r fewer persons, association, or trust Which has transacted business With, 0r has used the services of, the witness, 0r for whom the witness has acted as agent or fiduciary.” Vahe Tashjian is clearly a “consumer” as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure 1985(a)(1). The purpose 0f section 1985.3 is “t0 protect a consumer's right t0 privacy (Cal. Const, art. I, § 1) in his personal records maintained, or kept, by his attorney, accountant, doctor, banker, etc.” (Sasson v. Katash (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 119, 124.) -6- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MGO San Jose is an accounting firm. MGO stands for “Macias, Ginni and O’Connell, LLP.” MGO has separately filed objections to the instant SDT. (Sherman Decl. 1] 8; Declaration 0fVahe Tashjian [Tashjian Decl.”] fl 2.) The SDT directed t0 MGO San Jose seeks production 0f the following categories of documents regarding Vahe Tashjian: a) A11 “DOCUMENTS” (as the term is defined therein) “relating to any engagement agreements between ‘YOU’ (MGO 0f San Jose) and Vahe Tashjian from January 1, 2017 through the present.” b) A11 “DOCUMENTS” (as the term is defined therein) “relating to invoices that ‘YOU” (MGO of San Jose) issued to Vahe Tashjian for services that YOU provided from January 1, 2017 to the present.” c) A11 tax DOCUMENTS (as the term is defined therein) that “YOU (MGO 0f San Jose) prepared 0n behalf 0fVahe Tashjian, including but not limited to Form 1099’s, from January 1, 2017 through the present.” d) “A11 DOCUMENTS that Vahe Tashjian provided to YOU (MGO 0f San Jose) in the course 0fYOUR engagement.” e) “A11 DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession RELATING TO Vahe Tashjian.” f) “A11 DOCUMENTS, including any drafts, RELATING TO any reports that YOU (MGO 0f San Jose) prepared for Vahe Tashjian.” These documents are all clearly “personal records” 0f a “consumer,” and they also qualify for protection under the California Constitution right 0f privacy. MGO of San Jose is an accountancy firm and has handled accounting matters ofVahe Tashjian. V. THE SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO MGO OF SAN JOSE SEEKS PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY DEFENDANT VAHE TASHJIAN’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION. Article 1, Section 1 0f the California Constitution provides for an “inalienable” right to privacy as follows: “A11 people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these -7- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, andprivacy. ” (emphasis added). The constitutional right to privacy includes the right t0 financial privacy. Financial information is protected from discovery under Article I, Section I 0f the California Constitution. Moscowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 3 13, 3 15-3 16) (Valley Bank ofNevada v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652, 656.) A right of privacy exists as to a party's confidential financial affairs, even when the information sought is admittedly relevant t0 the litigation. (Cobb v. Sup.Ct. (Tleel) (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d 543, 550.) While the documents sought are simply not relevant to the subj ect matter 0f this action, even if they were somehow shown to relevant they are protected under Constitutional right to privacy. Even highly relevant, nonprivileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person's “inalienable right of privacy” provided by Calif. Const. Art. 1, § 1. (Britt v. Sup.Ct. (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-856; Pioneer Electronics (USA), Inc. v. SupCt. (Olmstead) (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 360, 370.) The more “sensitive” the information that is being sought by a party, the greater the need for discovery must be shown. (Hofi’man Corp. v. SupCt. (Smaystrla) (1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d 357, 362; Tien v. SupCt. (Tenet Healthcare Corp.) (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 528, 540). Personal financial information is among the most sensitive and protected information that can be sought in discovery. (Tien v. Sup. Ct. (Tenet Healthcare Corp, supra, at 539.) The party seeking the constitutionally protected information has the burden of establishing that the information sought is directly relevant to the claims. (Tylo v. Superior Court, (1987) 55 Ca1.App.4th 1382, 1387.) The party seeking the production 0f the privacy protected documents has the burden of showing a particularized need for the confidential information sought. (Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, 8:320.) The court must be convinced that the information is directly relevant to a cause of action 0r defense, such that it is essential t0 determining the truth 0f the matters in dispute. (Britt v. Sup.Ct. (San Diego Unified Port Dist.) (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859- 862; Binder v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Ca1.App.3d 893, 900.) A compelling state interest must be shown in order t0 obtain discovery of privacy protected information. Id. -8- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The documents being sought in the SDT encompass a broad scope 0f financial documents, Which would include bank statements, tax related documents, personal financial documents 0f Vahe Tashjian, financial statements 0fVahe Tashjian, and invoices issued by MGO would reflect financial information about Vahe Tashjian, a consumer. In determining the propriety of the documents 0r information sought, the court must consider the purpose 0f the information sought; the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties; the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure; and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. (Hooser v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1004). In the instant matter, the balancing 0f the interests With regard t0 seeking the financial records of Defendant Vahe Tashjian weighs clearly in favor of protecting the constitutional privacy rights of Mr. Tashjian, and in favor of quashing the subpoena directed t0 his financial records entirely. Mr. Tashjian clearly has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his financial records Which are being sought from MGO, and the tax records being sought from MGO 0f San Jose fall within financial privacy protection and tax privilege protection. Plaintiffs seek production of every imaginable financial document and record ofVahe Tashjian for a period 0f over four years, including time periods When Plaintiffs weren ’t even investors in the project at issue in this case, and time periods before they even allege there was an insolvency 0f 5150 ECR Group, LLC. The documents being sought are not relevant to the material allegations 0f the Complaint, which are that the real property was not sold When it should have been sold, and that Plaintiffs’ membership units were “diluted” due to the issuance ofnew member interests in the company. Further, Plaintiffs have not pursued any discovery as to Defendant Vahe Tashjian prior t0 issuing these subpoenas, and therefore have not established any threshold showing of relevancy as to seeking these documents. The documents being sought are highly intrusive into the privacy rights of Defendant Vahe Tashjian. Plaintiffs must show the existence 0f a particularized need for these financial records of Vahe Tashjian, and that these records are directly relevant to their allegations of the Complaint. N0 such particularized need for and direct relevance 0f these documents exists. Plaintiffs allege -9- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 that the real property was not sold When it should have been sold, and that their membership investment interest was diluted by the issuance of additional membership interests in 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC. None of these allegations establish a particularized need for bank records ofVahe Tashjian 0r his living Trust. The documents being sought are highly intrusive into the privacy rights of Defendant Vahe Tashjian. VI. THE SUBPOENAS SEEK DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY THE RIGHT OF BUSINESS PRIVACY. The SDTS seek a broad scope 0f Which are protected by business privacy interests. While the California Constitutional right to privacy is generally recognized as not being applicable to business entities, some privacy rights even for such artificial business entities are recognized by the law. “ ‘Although corporations have a lesser right t0 privacy than human beings and are not entitled to claim a right to privacy in terms of a fundamental right, some right t0 privacy exists. Privacy rights accorded artificial entities are not stagnant, but depend on the circumstances. [Citation] “However, we think one cannot draw a bright line at the corporate structure. The public attributes of corporations may indeed reduce pro tanto the reasonability of their expectation 0f privacy, but the nature and purposes of the corporate entity and the nature of the interest sought to be protected Will determine the question Whether under given facts the corporation per se has a protectible privacy interest...” [Citation] It is clear to us that the law is developing in the direction that the strength 0f the privacy right being asserted by a nonhuman entity depends 0n the circumstances. Two critical factors are the strength of the nexus between the artificial entity and human beings and the context in which the controversy arises.”’ (Ameri-Medical Corp. v. WCAB (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1286 - 1289) (Citing Roberts v. GulfOz'l Corp. (147 Ca1.App.3d 770, 796-797.) (emphasis added). The privacy rights of a business entity are determined by a balancing test of those privacy interests with consideration as to the relevancy 0f the documents sought. (SCC Acquisitions, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 741. As Will be set forth below, the SDT requests documents does not even satisfy the basic threshold of seeking documents that are relevant to the subj ect matter 0f the action, much less any test that involves a higher level of relevancy and particularity 0fneed and purpose for the documents. Further, there are no facts pled in the Complaint to justify the production 0f these documents on any grounds of “alter ego.” The allegations of the Complaint that the business entity defendants are the “alter egos” ofVahe Tashjian, are set forth in boiler plate language With -10- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 no specific supporting facts pled. VII. THE SUBPOENAS SEEK PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED TAX DOCUMENTS. The SDTS seek production of numerous tax related documents, including the following: 1. “A11 tax DOCUMENTS that YOU (MGO) prepared on behalf of” Vahe S. Tashjian, 5150 ECR Group, LLC, and Dutchints Development, LLC, “including but not limited to form- 1099’s, from January 1, 2017 through the present.” (Requests No. 7- 9.) 2. “A11 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any invoices that YOU issued to” Vahe Tashjian, 5150 ECR Group, LLC and Dutchints Development LLC, respectively, “for the period January 1, 2017 through the present.” (Request Nos. 4-6.) 3. “A11 DOCUMENTS that” Vahe Tashjian, 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC, and Dutchints Development, LLC “provided t0 YOU in the course 0fYOUR engagement.” (Requests Nos. 11- 1 3 .) 6. “A11 DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession RELATING TO” Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development LLC and 5150 ECR Group, LLC, respectively. (Requests Nos. 14-16.) 7. “A11 DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any engagement agreements between YOU” and Vahe Tashjian, 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC and Dutchints Development LLC, respectively, from January 1, 2017 through the present.” (Request Nos. 1-3). 8. “A11 DOCUMENTS, including drafts, RELATING TO any reports that YOU prepared for 5150 ECR Group, LLC.” (Request No. 10.) These demands for production set forth in the SDT are broad enough t0 include tax returns 0fVahe Tashjian and the business entities, and integral documents related thereto, as well as financially privacy protected documents. Federal and State tax returns, and the information contained therein, are privileged documents. (Webb v. Standard Oil Company ofCalifornia (1957) 49 Cal.2d 509, 513-5 14). Federal and State tax returns concerning not only individuals, but corporations and other business entities as well, are privileged from disclosure by the tax return privilege. (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 704, 720.) As the Court stated in Schnabel, supra: -1 1- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “Our decision in Webb, supra, 49 Cal.2d 509, 3 19 P.2d 621, interpreted Revenue and Taxation Code section 19282, Which concerns that part 0f the code dealing With personal income tax. However, an equivalent statute covers bank and corporation tax. (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 2645 1.) These equivalent statutes should be interpreted consistently, and the same privilege should apply. (See Sav-On Drugs, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal.3d at pp. 6-7, 123 Ca1.Rptr. 283, 538 P.2d 739 [applying the Webb rule to Rev. & Tax. Code, § 7056, the equivalent statute for sales and use taxes].) Id. Further, other documents or information that are an “integral part” 0f the tax return, such as W-2 forms, are also privileged. (Brown v. SupCt. (Executive Car Leasing) (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 141, 142.) With regard to the SDT issued t0 MGO 0f San Jose, the SDT seeks production of IRS 1099 forms for Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development, LLC and 5150 ECR Group, LLC, all 0fWhich are as integral t0 a tax return as is a W-2 form. Accountancy reports, notes, memos and drafts regarding tax returns should also be considered as integral documents and accordingly protected. There is simply n0 relevancy 0f any purported “tax documents” possibly in the possession ofMGO of San Jose regarding the subject matter 0f this case, much less “direct relevance” 0r particularized need for such documents. VIII. THE SUBPOENAS ARE OVERLY BROAD, INVASIVE, SEEK DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PROTECTED BY PRIVACY PROTECTIONS, AND SEEK DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ACTION. As set forth above, the gravamen of the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is that Vahe Tashjian, and business entities that he purportedly controls, failed t0 sell the real property at issue, When, according to the investors, he should have. As a result of the purported failure t0 sell the property, Plaintiffs claim t0 have been damaged. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants “diluted” Plaintiffs Class A membership units in the 5150 ECR Group, LLC by issuing new shares in the company. The Complaint further sets forth numerous unfounded and unsupported allegations “on information and belief.” These unsupported allegations include the following: a) On “information and belief,” Defendants “are engaging in self-dealing.” (Complaint fl 82.) There are n0 facts plead in the Complaint t0 support these allegations. b) On “information and belief” the “Defendants are funneling fimds into a separate -12- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 account over Which Defendant Vahe Tashjian has exclusive control, for his own use and personal benefit.” (Complaint 1] 82.) There are n0 facts pled in support 0f these allegations. c) Plaintiffs are “informed and believe” that “Defendant Vahe Tashjian continues to deplete Defendant 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC’s fimding Without member consent.” N0 facts are pled in support 0f this allegation. (Complaint 1] 45.) d) Plaintiffs are “informed and believe” that “Defendant Vahe Tashjian has expended $1,550,000 ofmember investments on construction expenses on the Property Without members’ consent or votes.” (Complaint fl 45.) There are n0 supporting facts pled in support of these allegations. e) Plaintiffs are “informed and believe” that Vahe Tashjian “has stated that he does not actually intend to sell the Property.” (Complaint 1] 46). N0 facts are pled in support 0f this allegation. f) Plaintiffs are “informed and believe” that 5150 ECR Group, LLC was insolvent as of April, 2019. (Complaint 1] 28.) No facts are pled in support of these allegations. Apparently based on these completely unsubstantiated allegations, all made on “information and belief” and Which are not related to the core allegations 0f the Complaint that the real property has not been sold and that Defendants have diluted the value of the Class A shares by issuing new membership shares, Plaintiffs have issued the instant SDT of the most invasive, overbroad, and Violative nature possible. The SDT seeks production of engagement agreements between the accounting firm and Vahe Tashjian for the past 4+ years, from January, 2017. This time period goes back t0 more than one year before the Complaint alleges that Plaintififs‘ even made their investments in 5150 ECR Group, LLC, as well as more than 2 years before Plaintiffs even claim the company became “insolvent.” Further, these documents have nothing to do with the allegations that the real property has not been sold, or that the value of Plaintiffs’ Class A shares in the company have been diluted. The types 0f documents that are being sought by way of the SDT With regard to Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development, LLC and 5 150 ECR Group, LLC, include the following: 1. A11 tax documents that MGO prepared on behalf 0fVahe S. Tashjian, 5 1 50 ECR -13- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Group, LLC and Dutchints Development, LLC from January 1, 2017 to the present. 2. A11 documents in MGO’s possession relating to Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development, LLC and 5150 ECR Group, LLC, respectively. There is no time limit whatsoever 0n these requests for documents. 3. A11 documents MGO relating t0 any invoices that MGO issued t0 Vahe Tashjian, 5150 ECR Group, LLC and Dutchints Development, LLC, respectively, for the period January 1, 2017 through the present. 4. A11 documents that Vahe Tashjian, 5150 ECR Group, LLC, and Dutchints Development, LLC provided to MGO in the course of the engagement. There is no time limit whatsoever on these requests for documents. 5. A11 documents related t0 any engagement agreements between MGO and Vahe Tashjian, 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC and Dutchints Development, LLC, respectively, from January 1, 2017 through the present. 6. A11 documents relating to any invoices that MGO issued t0 Vahe Tashjian, 5150 ECR Group, LLC and Dutchints Development, LLC, respectively, for the period January 1, 2017 through the present. These documents being sought in the SDT, and the other documents sought, are simply not relevant to the subj ect matter 0f the Complaint, nor are they reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The Complaint alleges defendants failed t0 sell the real property owned by 5150 ECR Group, LLC When, according to Defendants, it should have been sold, and thus they have been damaged; and that Plaintiffs have suffered a dilution 0f the value of their membership interests by the issuance ofnew membership shares in 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC. Nothing about these allegations supports seeking the documents that are being sought by way 0f the SDT issued to MGO of San Jose, which seeks personal, privacy protected financial documents ofVahe Tashjian; protected tax return and related documents; business privacy protected documents as t0 the two limited liability companies; financial documents from well before Plaintiffs ever invested in 5 1 50 ECR Group, LLC; and documents from well before the time that even Plaintiffs allege that the company became insolvent. The scope 0f the SDT is entirely overbroad. -14- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Once armed With over 4 years ofVahe Tashjian’s personal financial records, Plaintiffs could then subj ect Defendant Vahe Tashjian, and perhaps even members of his family, to hours of scrutiny in depositions over the most personal information in his life, completely immaterial to the instant case. Plaintiffs could further wreak havoc against Mr. Tashjian by disclosing financial information about Mr. Tashjian to anyone they choose, t0 cause him reputational and economic damage. The SDT seek disclosure of records for the past 4+ years, Which is more than one year before Plaintiffs even made their investments in 5150 ECR Group, LLC, and more than 2 years before even Plaintiffs assert in the Complaint (based 0n no alleged facts) that the company became “insolvent.” The SDT invades the business rights 0f privacy 0f Dutchints Development, LLC and in an attempt to find some support for utterly baseless allegations. Once armed with over 4 years ofbanking records concerning Dutchints Development, LLC and 5150 ECR Group, LLC from First Republic Bank, Plaintiffs could then subject Defendants, and perhaps even business associates, to further scrutiny over matters that are completely immaterial to this case. Plaintiffs could further wreak havoc against Mr. Tashjian by disclosing financial information about Dutchints Development, LLC and 5150 ECR Group, LLC t0 anyone they choose, t0 cause Mr. Tashjian and these companies economic damage. IX. THE SUBPOENAS SHOULD BE QUASHED ENTIRELY, OR SEVERELY REDUCED IN SCOPE. The SDT issued t0 MGO 0f San Jose seek documents Which are protected by the privileges and privacy protections set forth herein; seek documents for time periods that are not related t0 any of the subj ect matter of the Complaint; seek documents that are not relevant t0 the subj ect matter of the action nor are reasonably calculated t0 lead t0 admissible evidence; and are 0f such a scope that are clearly intended to annoy, oppress, and embarrass Defendants. Plaintiffs cannot establish any direct relevance of the documents sought by the SDT t0 the material allegations of the Complaint, or a particularized need for the privacy protected documents. There is no compelling interest to justify the seeking 0f these highly sensitive documents. The Court should quash the SDT that Plaintiffs have issued t0 MGO 0f San Jose, and in -15- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 particular the Court should quash in its entirety the SDT issued seeking the personal financial records of Defendant Vahe Tashjian. In the alternative, the Court should reduce the scope 0f the documents t0 be produced pursuant to the SDT to any such documents of a nature, and from a time period, that Plaintiffs can possibly establish have any direct relevance to the subj ect matter of the Complaint, and for Which there is a particularized need, and a compelling interest t0 be produced, assuming that Plaintiffs can set forth evidence of any such relevance. X. THE SUBPOENA HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAUSING UNWARRANTED ANNOYANCE, EMBARRASSMENT, AND OPPRESSION OF DEFENDANTS AND THIS COURT SHOULD AWARD SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANTS HAVING TO BRING FORTH THIS MOTION. Code 0f Civil Procedure sections 2025.410, subdivision (d) and 2025.420, subdivision (d) also require sanctions to be imposed against any party, person or attorney who unsuccessfully opposes a motion t0 quash 0r motion for a protective order unless there was substantial justification. Under sections 2013.010 and 2023.030, subdivision (a), sanctions are also warranted against “one engaging the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, 0r both . . .” Section 2023.010 enumerates the following misuses 0f discovery: “(b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures. (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or t0 an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, 0r oppression, 0r undue burden and expense. (h) Making 0r opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery.” Code 0f Civil Procedure 2023.010 provides as follows: “Misuses 0f the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) persisting, over obj ection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner 0r t0 an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” The clear intent of the scope of Plaintiffs’ invasive SDT is t0 obtain as much personal -16- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 financial information as they can as to Defendant Vahe Tashjian and the two companies, Which can then be used t0 annoy, embarrass and oppress Defendant Vahe Tashjian and the companies, for Plaintiffs untoward advantage in litigation. There is simply n0 relevant need for the scope 0f the documents sought and the personal, sensitive nature of the documents sought. Code 0f Civil Procedure section 1987.2, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: “[I]n making an order pursuant to motion made under . . . Section 1987.1, the court may in its discretion award the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred in making . . . the motion, including reasonable attorney’s fees, if the court finds the motion was opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive.” (emphasis added.) Here, as detailed, Plaintiffs’ Subpoena is undoubtedly overbroad and seeks documents that are clearly irrelevant t0 the case and Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs’ oppressive discovery tactics by and thought the Subpoena issued Will cause Defendants unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden and expense. Accordingly, Defendants request that the court impose sanctions 0n Plaintiffs and/or their counsel 0f record in the amount of $3,035. (See Sherman Decl.) XI. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Defendants respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion and either Quash the SDTs entirely, or appropriately reduce the scope ofdocuments to be produced thereunder. DATED: May 10, 2021 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP fit/ EDMUND J. SHERMAN Attorneys for Defendants VAHE TASHJIAN, DUTCHINTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 5 150 ECR GROUP, LLC and 5150 ECR GROUP MANAGER, LLC By: -17- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF EDMUND SHERMAN I, EDMUND SHERMAN, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed t0 practice before the courts 0f the State of California. I am an associate attorney With Davidovich Stein Law Group, LLP, attorneys 0f record for Defendants Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development, LLC, 5150 ECR Group, LLC and 5150 ECR Group Manager, LLC in this action. The following facts are within my personal knowledge, and if called as a Witness I could and would competently testify to the following: 2. On April 6, 2021, Plaintiffs’ counsel Daniel Ballesteros, Esq. issued the instant Deposition Subpoena for Production 0f Business Records (“SDT”) t0 MGO 0f San Jose. The SDT issued to MGO of San Jose is one 0f six SDTs that Plaintiffs’ counsel issued on the same day, April 6, 2021, seeking production 0f documents pertaining t0 Defendants Vahe Tashjian, Dutchints Development, LLC, 5150 ECR Group Manager, LLC, and 5150 ECR Group, LLC. Notice 0f the issuance 0f the SDT in the instant matter, as well as all 0f the other SDTs issued by Plaintiffs’ counsel Mr. Ballesteros on April 6, 2021 was given by West Coast Legal Services t0 Attorney Michael Abbot. Attorney Michael Abbot subsequently forwarded the Notice 0f the issuance 0f the instant SDT issued t0 MGO of San Jose t0 this office. This office did not begin representing Defendants in this matter until late April, 2021. 3. A copy of the Notice issued by West Coast Legal Services is attached hereto as Exhibit “1 4. A copy of the SDT issued by Plaintiff’s attorney Mr. Ballesteros to MGO of San Jose is attached hereto as Exhibit “2.” 5. The SDT issued by Mr. Ballesteros set forth Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563, which is not the case number of the instant case. Mr. Ballesteros does not represent any party in Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563. Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563 was filed by Plaintiff LCC Warehouse III LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, against 5150 ECR Group, LLC.LCC Warehouse III, LLC is the sole Plaintiff, and is represented by the firm Duane Morris, LLP. On behalf of his same clients in the instant case, on March 30, 2021, Mr. Ballesteros filed an EX-Parte Application seeking leave t0 intervene in the -18- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 case number 21CV378563, but leave t0 intervene has never been granted. 6. On May 4, 2021, I sent correspondence t0 Mr. Ballesteros, pointing out that he had issued the SDTs in a case in which he did not represent any parties. A copy ofmy correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “3” and is incorporated herein by this reference. 7. Mr. Ballesteros responded t0 my correspondence on May 5, 2021. Mr. Ballesteros took the position that setting forth the case number was a mere “scrivenors error,” that he intended t0 issue the SDTs in this case, and that he would not withdraw the SDTs. A copy oer. Ballesteros’ correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit “4” and is incorporated herein by this reference. 8. MGO of San Jose is an accountancy firm. The letters “MGO” stand for Macias, Gini and O’Connell, LLP. Macias, Ginni & O’Connell, LLP has served its own objections to the SDT. A true and correct copy 0f the first page of the objections filed by Macias, Gini and O’Connell, LLP, which was served on this office, is attached hereto as Exhibit “5,” incorporated by reference. SANCTIONS 9. My hourly rate for this matter is $350. Iwas admitted to the California Bar in 199 1 , and have over 29 years of business litigation experience. Drafting this Motion has taken approximately 4.5 hours. I estimate that the time to review and respond t0 any Opposition to this Motion, and attend a telephonic or Video hearing 0n the Motion Will take approximately another four (4) hours. The filing fee for this Motion is $60.00. Thus, by forcing Defendants to bring this Motion, cost Defendants $2,975 in attorneys’ fees ($350 X 8.5 hours = $2,975.00) and $60 in costs, for total attorneys’ fees and costs 0f $3,035.00. Defendants request that the Court assess monetary sanctions in the amount 0f $3,035.00 against Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, and their counsel, in this amount. I declare under penalty 0fperjury under the laws ofthe State 0f California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on this 10th day of May, 2021, at North Hollywood, California. flu EDMUND J. SHERMAN -19- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 EXHIBIT 1 WESTCOAST LEGAL SERVICE WLS#: 00321087 1925 S Winchester Blvd #203, Campbell, CA 95008 Phone (800)698-8177 Fax (800) 698-5877 April 6, 2021 REPLYBY DUE DATE: 5/1 2/2021 Michael L. Abbott Law Offices of Michael Abbott CASE: Janet Bocek, et aI. 126 South Third Ave V Vahe Tahsjian, et al. oakdale, CA 95361 ACTION: 21CV378563 RECORDS ON: REQUESTOR: Daniel W. Ballesteros Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel Please be advised that the attached Subpoena(s) has been issued for production of business records only. No appearance will be made. WLS will release the requested records on, or after, the above due date. No records will be disbursed until the due date. If there is a signed time waiver or patient authorization records may be released prior to the due date, lf you would like copies of any of the records listed below, please indicate by checking the appropriate box, sign and return this form to our office prior tothe due date above. Ifthis form is returned with no boxes checked, we will assume you want copies of all records listed. If you do notwantany ofthe records listed below, do not return this form. Any changes to your request, once it has been returned to us, must be IN WRITING and received by us BEFORE your copies are invoiced. An updated status of your request is available at any time through our client services department. There is a $59.00 basic, .59/page (hard copy ordigital image), $10.00 minimum page charge & shipping charge for each location you check. X-Rays, MRI's, CT's etc. $30 per CD/DVD. Because of COVID-19 records produced DIGITALLY unless otherwise instructed. Additional chargeifproduced in morethan one format. Unless prior credit has been established, COPIES WILL BE SHIPPED C.O.D. To avoid C.O.D. shipment. you may provide your credit card information below. Late requests subject toa$20.00 per location retrieval fee. Payment terms are net/30 & any unpaid balance over 30 days is subject to a 1 1/2% finance charge per month. In addition, delinquent accounts referredto collection are subjectto all costs incurred during the collection process. By signing & returning this form you agreetothe paythe outline charges. l 1 01 MGO sa“ J°se Authorized Signature Phone # [ ] 02 Harden Homes, LLC [ ] 03 First Republic Bank clo CSC-LawemJnmpomfingSemice [ ] 04 First Republic Bank clo CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Print Name FAX # [ ] 05 First Republic Bank clo CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service [ ] 06 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. clo CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Represent Your File # Production Method: E % gaDper ParalegaI/Secretary E-Mail I 1 Download D VISA D MASTERCARD D AMEX D DISCOVER E-mail address required for records download. Add'tl charge ifproduced in more than one format. Card Number Exp. Date Name on Card Bimng street address/ZIp code Authorizes requested records to be charged using the information provided. Mail or fax this page to 408-938-6536. email to order52@westcoastlegal.com to order records. 5671400 Changes or Cancellation to request, must be IN WRITING 8. received by WLS BEFORE your copies are invoiced. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS/NOTES WLS# 00321087-01 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CCP 2025) PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER (CCP 1985.3) (CCP 1985.6) I am employed in the State of California, County of Santa Clara. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within action(s). My business address is 1925 S Winchester Blvd #203, Campbell, CA 95008. On April 6, 2021, | served this DEPOSITION SUBPOENA and NOTICE TO CONSUMER (CCP 1985.3/1985.6)on the consumer whose personal records are being sought, as required by CCP 1985.3/1 985.6, by serving the consumer/employee or his or her attorney of record as listed below, and on all parties appearing in this action, by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Campbell, California, addressed as follows: | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 6, 2021 at Campbell, California. n SIGNED I A WestCoast Legal Sewice Michael L. Abbott Law Offices of Michael Abbott 126 South Third Ave Oakdale, CA 95361 ASM784/00321087-01 EXHIBIT 2 WLS #: 00321087-01 SUBP-010 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WH’HOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURTuse ONLY Hoge , Fenton , Jones 5 Appel Daniel W. Ballesteros, SEN 142003 60 South Market St. #1400 San Jose, CA 95113 TELEPHONENO.: (408) 287-9501 FAXNO.: (408) 287-2583 E-MAIL ADDRESS: dan . ballesterosehogefenton . com ArrORNEYFORmame): Plaintiffs, Janet Bocek, et a1. SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA. COUNTY 0F Santa Clara STREETADDRESS: 1 91 N . First Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITYAND ZIP CODE: San Jose , 95113 BRANCH NAME: Civil-Unlimited PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Janet Bocek , et al . DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Vahe Tahsjian, et a1. DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER: FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 21CV3'78563 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, ilknown): (4 08) 418-4 000 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MGO San Jose, 60 South Market St #1500, San Jose, CA, 95113 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name ofdeposition officer; WestCoast Legal Service Ph: (800) 698-8177 On (date): May 12, 2021 At(time): 10:00:00 Location (address): 1925 S Winchester Blvd #203 , Campbell , CA 95008 Do not release the requesteg records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time statggjbove. ag 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. hm 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 afier 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 affidavit 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 information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): Any and all records as described in Attachment 3 E Continued on Attachment 3. 4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER 0R EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH 0R 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 0F 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: April 6, 2021 > r a (SI TURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPOENA)' . B 1Daruel W a lesteros Attorney at Law (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (TITLE) (Proof of service on pgge two) Ffldfigf’flfifimg‘fifi? DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION °°°°°'°‘V"P'°c°g‘gr:grfifi,§gf%§;2§2§%gfli SUBP-O1OIRev. January 1. 2012] OF BUSINESS RECORDS 00321 087-01ICPROOF105C ATTACHMENT 3 DEFINITIONS: 1. “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS" shall mean all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things, including without limitation all writings (as defined in Section 250 of the California Evidence Code) and all other means of recording information, whether written, transcribed, mped. filmed. microfilmed, or in any other way produced, reproduced, or recorded, and including but not limited to: originals. drafts, computer-sorted and computer-retrievable information, copies and duplicates that are marked with any notation or annotation or otherwise differ in any way from the original. correspondence, memoranda, reports, notes, minutes, contracts. agreements, books, records, checks. vouchers, invoices, purchase orders. Iedgers. diaries. logs, calendars, computer printouts. computer disks. card files, lists of persons attending meetings or conferences, sketches, diagrams. calculations, evaluations, analyses, directions. work papers. press clippings, sworn or unswom statements. req uisitions, manuals or guidelines, audit work papers. financial analyses, tables of organizations, charts. graphs, indices, advertisements and promotional materials, audited and unaudited financial statements, trade letters. trade publications. newspapers and newsletters. photographs, emails, electronic or mechanical records, facsimiles, telegrams and telecopies, and audiotapes. Each draft. annotated, or othewvise non-identical copy is a separate DOCUMENT within the meaning of this term. DOCUMENTS shall also include any removable sticky notes, flags, or other attachments affixed to any of the foregoing, as well as the files, folder tabs, and labels appended to or containing any documents. DOCUMENTS expressly include all ELECTRONIC RECORDS. 2. “ELECTRONIC RECORDS” shall mean the original (or identical duplicate when the original is not available) and any non-identical copies (whether non-identical because of notes made on copies or attached comments, annotations. marks, transmission notations, or highlighting of any kind) of writings of every kind and description inscribed by mechanical, facsimile, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other means. ELECTRONIC RECORDS includes, by way of example and not by limitation. computer programs (whether private. commercial, or work-in- progress), programming notes and instructions. activity listings of email transmittals and receipts, output resulting from the use of any sofiware program (including word processing documents, spreadsheets. database files, charts, graphs and outlines). electronic mail, and any and all miscellaneous files and file fragments. regardless of the media on which they reside and regardless of whether said ELECTRONIC RECORDS exists in an active file, deleted file, or file fragment ELECTRONIC RECORDS includes without limitation any and all items stored on computer memories, hard disks, diskettes and cartridges, network drives. network memory storage, archived tapes and cartridges. backup tapes. floppy disks. CD-ROMs. removable media, magnetic tapes of all types. microfiche, and any other media used for digital data storage or transmittal. 43m ELECTRONIC RECORDS also includes the file, folder tabs, and containers and labels appended to or associated with each original and non-identiwl copy. "COMMUNICATION(S)” means any oral, written, or electronic transmission of information, including but not limited to meetings. discussions, conversations. telephone calls, telegrams, memoranda, letters. telecopies, telexes, conferences, messages, notes. or seminars. “RELATING TO.” “RELATED TO" or “RELATE(S) T0" means constituting. containing, oonoeming, embodying, reflecting. identifying, stating. mentioning, discussing, describing. evidencing. or in any other way being relevant to that given subject matter. “YOU” and “YOUR" shall mean MGO San Jose, including any and all ofYOUR agents. employees, representatives. investigators, attorneys, accountants, affiliates. and anyone acting on YOUR behalf. DOCUMENT REQUESTS: All DOCUMENTS RELATING T0 any engagement agreements between YOU and 5150 ECR Group LLC from January 1. 2017 through the present. All DOCUMENTS RELATING T0 any engagement agreements between YOU and Dutchints Development LLC from January 1, 2017 through the present. All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any engagement agreements between YOU and Vahe Tashjian from January 1. 2017 through the present. All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any invoices that YOU issued to 5150 ECR Group LLC for services thatYOU provided from January 1. 2017 through the present. All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any invoicae thatYOU issued to Dutchints Development LLC for services that YOU provided from January 1. 2017 through the present All DOCUMENTS RELATING T0 any invoices that YOU issued to Vahe Tashjian for services that YOU provided from January 1, 2017 through the present. All tax DOCUMENTS that YOU prepared on behalf of 5150 ECR Group LLC, ~ including but not limited to Form-1099's, from January 1, 2017 through the present. All tax DOCUMENTS that YOU prepared on behalf of Dutchints Development LLC, including but not limited to Form-1 099's. from January 1, 2017 through the present. ' 9. All tax DOCUMENTS that YOU prepared on behalf ofVahe Tashjian, including but not limited to Form-1 099's. from January 1, 2017 through the present. 10.All DOCUMENTS, including drafts, RELATING TO any reports that YOU prepared for 5150 ECR Group LLC. 11.All DOCUMENTS that 5150 ECR Group LLC provided to YOU in the course of YOUR engagement. 1 2.Al| DOCUMENTS that Dutchints Development LLC provided to YOU in the course ofYOUR engagement. 13.All DOCUMENTS that Vahe Tashjian provided to YOU in the course ofYOUR engagement. 14.All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession RELATING TO 51 50 ECR Group LLC. 15.Al| DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession RELATING TO Dutchints Development LLC. 16.Al| DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession RELATING TO Vahe Tashjian LLC. 4353a! 00321 087-01 SUBP-025 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel Daniel W. Ballesteros, SBN 142003 60 South Market St. #1400 San Jose, CA 95113 TELEPHONEN0.: (408) 287-9501 FAXNO.:(408) 287-2583 EMAILADDRsss; dan . ballesteros@hogefenton . com ATrORNEYFORm/ame): Plaintiffs, Janet Bocek, et a1. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Sanh Clara STREETADDRESS: 191 N . First Street MAILING ADDRESS: cmrANDZIP CODE: San Jose 95113 BRANCH NAME: Civi1-Un1imited FOR COURT USEONLY PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Janet Bocek, et al. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Vahe Tahsjian, et a1. NOTICE To CONSUMER 0R EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc. , §§ 1985 . 3 , 1985 . 6) CASE NUMBER: 21CV378563 NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE T0 (name): Vahe Tashjian 1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT REQUESTING PARTY (name): Plaintiffs , SEEKS YOUR RECORDS FOR EXAMINATION by the parties t0 this action on (SpeciW dale): Janet Bocek, et a1. May 12, 2021 The records are described in the subpoena directed to witness (specify name and address ofperson or entity from whom records are sought): MGO San Jose 60 South Market St #1500, San Jose, CA 95113 A copy of the subpoena is attached. 2. IF YOU OBJECT to the production of these records, YOU MUST DO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED IN ITEM a. OR b. BELOW: a. If you are a party to the above-entiltled action. you must file a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena and give notice ofthat motion to the witness and the deposition officer named in the subpoena at least five days before the date set for the production of the records. b. If you are not a party to this action, you must serve on the requesting party and on the witness, before the date set for production of the records, a written objection that states the specific grounds on which production of such records should be prohibited. You may use the form below to object and state the grounds for your objection. You must complete the Proof of Service on the reverse side indicating whether you personally served or mailed the objection. The objection should not be filed with the court. WARNING: IF YOUR OBJECTION IS NOT RECEIVED BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED IN ITEM 1, YOUR RECORDS MAY BE PRODUCED AND MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES. YOU OR YOUR ATTORNEY MAY CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED to determine whether an agreement can be reached in writing to cancel or limit the scope of the subpoena. If no such agreement is reached, and if you are not otherwise represented by an attorney in this adion. YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE YOU 0F YOUR RIGHTS OF PRIVACY. Date: April 6, 2021 }Daniel W. Ballesteros (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE 0FD REQUESTING PARTYm ATTORNEY OBJECTION BY NON-PARTY TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS 1.E l object to the production of all of my records specified in the subpoena. 2. | object only to the production of the following specified records: 3. The specific grounds for my objection are as follows: Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE) (See next page for proof of service) Page 1 of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Code of c‘ 'l Proced ,Mimmmamm NOTICE To CONSUMER 0R EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION wggsmagf; SUBP-025 [Rev. January 1. 2008] 2020.010-2020.510 Orderk 00321087-O1ICPROOF1 5N SUBP-025 PLAINNFF/PETmONER: Janet Bocek , et a1 . CASE NUMBER: 2 1CV378563DEFENDAN‘r/RESPONDENT: Vahe Tahsjian , et a1 . PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.6)D Personal Service a Mail 1. At the time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. l served a copy of the Notice to Consumer orEmployee and Objection as follows (check either a or b): am Personal service. I personally delivered the Notice to Consumer orEmployee and Objection as follows: (1) Name of person served: (3) Date served: (2) Address: (4) Time served: ha Mail. I deposited the Notice to Consumer orEmployee and Objection in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (1) Name of person served: Michael L. Abbott (3) Date of mailing: 4/6/2021 (2) Address: 126 South Third Ave Oakdale, CA 95361 (4) Place of mailing: Campbell, CA (5) I am a resident of or employed in the county where the Notice to Consumer orEmployee and Objection was mailed. c. My residence or business address is (specify): 1925 S Winchester Blvd #203, Campbell, CA 95008 d. My phone number is (specify): (800) 698-8177 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the laws of the State of California that the foreaoina is true and correct. Date: 4/6/2021 Christy Kinq (TYPE OR PRINT NAME 0F PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS (Code of Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.6) Personal Service D Mall 1. At the time of service I was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. I served a copy of the Objection to Production of Records as follow (complete either a or b): a. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY (1)E Personal service. l personally delivered the Objection to Production ofRecords as follows: (i) Name of person sewed: (iii) Date served: (ii) Address where served: (iv) Time served: (3D Mail. l deposited the Objection to Production of Recordsin the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (i) Name of person served: (iii) Date of mailing: (ii) Address: (iv) Place of mailing (city and state: (v) I am resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed. b. ON THE WITNESS: (”D Personal service. I personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: (i) Name of person served: (iii) Date sewed: (ii) Address where served: (iv) Time served: (2) Mail. I deposited the Objection to Pmducfion of Records in the United States mail. in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (i) Name of person served: (iii) Date of mailing: (i0 Address: (iv) Place of mailing (city and state): (v) l am a resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed. 3. My residence or business address is (specify): 4. My phone number is (specify): l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: D (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) Page 2 ofz suapmsmm" Jammy 13°“) NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION wggfigmm EXHIBIT 3 A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP_ S T E I N _ 6442 COLDWATER CANYON AVE.SUITE 209 L A W G R O U P NORTH HOLLywoop,CA91606g DAVIDOVICH 818 661-2420 - PHONE 818 301-5131 - FAX WWW.DAVIDOVICHLAWCOM May 4, 2021 VIA EMAIL AND OVERNIGHTDELIVERY Dan.Ballesteros@HogeFenton.com Jessie.Palmer@HogeFenton.com Daniel W. Ballesteros, Esq. HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL 60 South Market Street, Suite 1400 San Jose, California 95 1 13 Re: Deposition Subpoenas for the Production 0f Business Records issued t0 First Republic Bank, Wells Fargo Bank, Harden Homes andMGO San Jose Santa Clara Superior Court Case N0. 21CV3 78563 DEMAND T0 IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAWSUBPOENAS DEAR MR. BALLESTEROS: As you are aware, this office has recently been engaged as counsel t0 represent 5 150 ECR Group, LLC, Vahe Tashjian, 5 1 50 ECR Group Manager, LLC and Dutchints Development, LLC in Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV376460; as well as to represent 5150 ECR Group, LLC in Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563. It has come to our attention that you, as an attorney with the firm Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, have improperly issued six (6) separate Deposition Subpoenas for the Production 0f Business Records (“Subpoenas Duces Tecum” of “SDTs”) in Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 21CV378563, which is a case in which yourfirm does not represent any party. Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 21CV378563 is the case 0f LCC Warehouse III LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company v. 5150 ECR Group, LLC. Plaintiff LCC Warehouse III LLC is represented by the firm Duane Morris, LLP, by Meagen Leary, Esq. as lead counsel, and other counsel who are set forth on pleadings filed by that firm, none ofwhom is you. Neither your firm, nor you individually, is counsel to any party in case number 21CV378563. The Court docket indicates that your firm filed an EX-Parte Application for the setting of an OSC re: leave to Intervene in Santa Clara Superior Court case number 21CV378563, but the OSC for leave t0 Intervene has not been ruled upon. As of this date, your firm has n0 standing t0 issue any Subpoena in case number 21CV378563, nor did it have any standing t0 do so on April 6, 2021, the date of issuance 0f the SDTs. -STEIN-LAWGROUPEOE DAVIDOVICH Daniel W. Ballesteros, Esq. HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL May 4, 2021 Page 2 California Code 0f Civil Procedure 1985 (c) provides as follows: “An attorney at law who is the attorney ofrecord in an action 0r proceeding, may sign and issue a subpoena duces tecum to require production 0fthe matters or things described in the subpoena.” (emphasis added). The six SDTs issued by your firm, signed by you, are unlawful, ineffective and void ab initio. Further, your actions in issuing these Subpoenas is n0 mere minor typographical error. Each of the six SDTs issued by you, as an attorney for the Hoge Fenton firm, sets forth case number 21CV378563, and each of the Notices to Consumer that are attached to each 0f the Subpoenas Duces Tecum bears this same case number. Nowhere is there any reference to any case number of any case in which you or your firm represent any party. To be clear, the Subpoenas Duces Tecum to which I am referring are as follows: 1. Deposition Subpoena for the Production 0f Business Records directed to First Republic Bank, issued 0n April 6, 2021 and signed by you, seeking documents with regard to Vahe Tashjian. 2. Deposition Subpoena for the Production 0f Business Records directed t0 First Republic Bank, issued 0n April 6, 2021 and signed by you, seeking documents with regard to 5150 ECR Group, LLC. 3. Deposition Subpoena for the Production 0f Business Records directed t0 First Republic Bank, issued 0n April 6, 2021 and signed by you, seeking documents With regard to Dutchints Development LLC. 4. Deposition Subpoenas for the Production 0f Business Records directed t0 Wells Fargo Bank, issued 0n April 6, 2021 and signed by you, seeking documents with regard to 5150 ECR Group, LLC. 5. Deposition Subpoenas for the Production 0f Business Records directed t0 Harden Homes, LLC, issued on April 6, 2021 and signed by you, seeking documents With regard t0 5150 ECR Group, LLC, Vahe Tashjian and Dutchints Development LLC, and other topics. 6. Deposition Subpoenas for the Production 0f Business Records directed to MGO San Jose issued on April 6, 2021 and signed by you, seeking documents With regard to 5 150 ECR Group, LLC, Vahe Tashjian and Dutchints Development LLC. DAVIDOVICH- STEIN - L A w G R o U PDaniel W. Ballesteros, Esq. HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL May 4, 2021 Page 3 «0 It is hereby demanded that you immediately Withdraw all 0f the above referenced SDTs that were issued by your firm; that you immediately notify each of the subpoenaed parties that these Subpoenas are ineffective and that they should not produce any documents pursuant t0 the Subpoenas; that you notify the deposition officer, West Coast Legal Services that the Subpoenas are ineffective and that it should not accept any such documents that may be produced; and that you provide notice to this office, t0 my attention, that this has been done by no later than 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. Should this office have t0 file motions to Quash these improperly issued Subpoenas Duces Tecum, we will seek an award of monetary sanctions against you and your firm for having issued the Subpoenas and your subsequent failure to withdraw these Subpoenas Duces Tecum, after being put on notice to do so. This communication addresses solely the improper issuance and ineffectiveness 0f the SDTS, and does not address objections we have to the substance 0f the Subpoenas Duces Tecum, had they been properly issued. We reserve all rights to assert these further objections to the substance 0f the SDTs in the future. Very truly yours, DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP é L/ EDMUND J. SHERMAN ES/GR-O EXHIBIT 4 HOGE -' FENTON Daniel W. Ballesteros 408.947.2416 dan.ballesteros@hogefenton.com May 5, 2021 Via Email and U.S. Mail Edmund Sherman Davidovich Stein Law Group 6442 Coldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, CA 91606 ed@davidovichlaw.com Re: Bocek, et al. v. Tashjian, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21CV376460 Our File No. : 203609 Dear Mr. Sherman: This letter serves to respond to your correspondence dated May 4, 2021, wherein you request that we withdraw Plaintiffs' six Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records. As you know, there are over one dozen lawsuits pending against your client. The reference to the incorrect case number on Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoenas was therefore merely a scrivener’s error. Moreover, Defendants’ objection to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas exalts form over substance given that each of the subpoenas issued refers to the correct case name. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ will not withdraw their subpoenas, nor will they instruct the deposition subpoena that the subpoenas are ineffective. We will, however, issue the enclosed corrected captions and Notices to Consumer today and ensure that you are provided with service copies of the same. We trust that this will adequately resolve your concerns. Very truly yours, HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. Enclosures cc: WestCoast Legal Service; MGO San Jose; Harden Homes, LLC; First Republic Bank; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Silicon Valley Office | 60 South Market Street, Suite 1400, San Jose, California 95113-2396 4397544 phone 408.287.9501 fax 408.287.2583 www.hogefenton.com EXHIBIT 5 GARRETT & TULLY APROFESQONALCORPORAHON 475469 \OOOQQLIIAWNu-t NNNNNNNNNv-Iu-fiu-tu-A-sn-nu-nn-sv-‘p-a GO \J Ch LA 4> UQ b3 F‘ CD VD 00 \J Ch Ln J> <40 bJ F‘ CD Natalia M. Greene, SBN 207370 ngreene@garrett-tully.com Nicholas Lauber, SBN 288499 nlauber@garrett-tully.com GARRETT & TULLY, P.C. 4165 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite 201 Westlake Village, California 91362-3839 Telephone: (805) 446-4141 Facsimile: (805) 446-4135 Attorneys for Non-Party Macias Gini & O’Connell, LLP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE 0F CALIFORNIA COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA JANET BOCEK, GARY LAINE, JUDY Case No. 21CV376460 LAINE, TOM PARE, DIANA PARE, CATHERINE HUNG, TOD FUKUSPHMA, NON-PARTY MACIAS GINI & LOURDES MARTINEZ, APN4, LLC, O’CONNELL, LLP’S WRITTEN HEYMAN FAMILY TRUST, and OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ SHORESIDE DIRECTED TRUST, DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Plaintiffs, (Hon. Audra Ibarra, Dept. 12) vs. Action Filed: February 24, 2021 VAHE TASHJIAN, an individual, DUTCHINTS DEVELOPMENT LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, 5 1 50 ECR GROUP LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, 5 l 50 ECR GROUP MANAGER, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1985, et seq.; 2017.010, et seq.; and 2020.410, et seq., Non-Party Macias Gini & O’Connell, LLP (“MGO”) hereby objects to the Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records and requests for documents contained therein, served upon “MGO San Jose” by the Plaintiffs in the above-referenced action (“Subpoena”) on the following grounds: l NON-PARTY MACIAS GINI & O’CONNELL, LLP’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DocuSign Envelope ID: C1C35981-6CC1-4372-AF82-28DE2A927350 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF VAHE TASHJIAN I, Vahe Tashjian, declare as follows: 1. I am a named Defendant in this matter. The following facts are Within my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness I could and would competently testify to the following: 2. MGO of San Jose is an accountancy firm. The letters “MGO” stand for Macias, Gini and O’Connell, LLP. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration is executed on this 10th day 0f May, 2021, at Los Altos, California. DocuSigned by: Valu/ Tmsfljim 996856386BA1 4F5... VAHE TASHJIAN -20- Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE - 1013AI3], 2015.5 C.C.P. Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 21CV376460 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the County 0f Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (1 8) and not a party t0 the Within action; my business address is 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 - North Hollywood, California 91606. On May 10, 2021, I served, in the manner indicated below, the foregoing document described as DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE 0F MOTION AND MOTION T0 QUASH SERVICE 0F DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION 0F BUSINESS RECORDS 0N FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS; SEPARATE STATEMENT; DECLARATION 0F EDMUND J. SHERMAN 0n the interested parties in this action as follows: PLEASE SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST D VIA PERSONAL SERVICE: I caused such envelope(s) t0 be delivered by hand t0 the above address(es) listed 0n this page or the attached service list. D VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE: By placing a copy thereof for delivery in a separate envelope addressed t0 each addressee, respectively as follows: D VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL (Code 0f Civil Procedure §§10 1 3 and 10 1 3(a)) D VIA EXPRESS MAIL, FEDERAL EXPRESS 0R OTHER OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE (Code 0f Civil Procedure §§ 1 013(0) and (d)) D VIA CERTIFIED MAIL (Code of Civil Procedure §§1013 and 1013(a)) D VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE: By placing a copy thereof for delivery in a separate envelope addressed to each addressee, respectively as follows: D VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS (Code osz'vz‘l Procedure §§ 10 1 3(0) and (d)) D VIA UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1013(c) and (d)) D VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: (Code 0f Civil Procedure §§1013(e) and (D): from facsimile number: 818.301.5131 t0 the facsimile number(s) listed 0n the attached -21- NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 service list. The facsimile machine I used complied With California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.306 and no error was reported by the machine. COURTESY COPY VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: I caused the Document(s) t0 be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed 0n the attached service list. I did not receive, Within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. My electronic service address is: Gabriela@DaVid0VichLaw.com. VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: Complying with an agreement with all parties, I caused the Document(s) to be sent to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed on the attached service list. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. My electronic service address is: Gabriela@DaVidovichLaw.com. A copy 0f the sent e-mail Will be maintained with the original document(s) in our office. (Code 0f Civil Procedure §1010.6 and California Rules 0fC0urt, Rule 2.251.) VIA ELECTRONIC FILING SERVICE: Complying With Code 0f Civil Procedure §1010.6, my electronic business address is: Gabriela@DaVid0VichLaW.com and I caused such document(s) to be electronically served through the Janney & Janney system for the above-entitled case t0 those parties on the attached Service List maintained on its website for this case. The file transmission was reported as complete and a copy 0f the Filing/Service Receipt will be maintained With the original document(s) in our office. VIA SHAREFILE: Complying with Code ofCivil Procedure §1010.6(a)(1)(c), I caused an electronic notice t0 be sent t0 the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) listed on the attached Service List. This notice contained a secure link that permits the person(s) individual access to download the above-listed document(s). Notification is provided Via counsel’ s secure ShareFile system’ s administrative e- mail account .A copy of the sent e- mail Will be maintained with the document(s) 1n our office. (Cod-e 0f Civil Procedure §1010.6 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.251 .) I did not receive, within a reasonable time after transmission, any electronic message 0r other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. This link will expire after 60 days and access will no longer be permitted to the document(s). Pursuant t0 Code ofCivil Procedure §1010.6(a)(2), the party(ies) have agreed t0 receive electronic service Via this method. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws 0f the State 0f California that the above is true and correct. Executed 0n May 10, 2021, in North Hollywood, California. GABRIELA M. REED-OLEA -22- Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS DAVIDOVICH STEIN LAW GROUP LLP 6442 Goldwater Canyon Avenue, Suite 209 North Hollywood, California 91606 (818) 661-2420 KOOOQQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE - SERVICE LIST‘ Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, ez‘ al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Case N0. 21CV37646O Daniel W. Ballesteros, Esq. Ashlee N. Cherry, Esq. HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. 60 S. Market Street, Suite 1400 San Jose, California 95 1 13-2396 Telephone: (408) 287-9501 Facsimile: (408) 287-2583 Attorneyfor Plaintififv JANETBOCKE, GARYLAINE, JUDYLAINE, TOMPARE, DIANA PARE, CATHERINHUNG, TOD FUKUSHIMA, LOURDESMARTINEZ, APN4, LLC, HEYMANFAMILY TRUST and SHORESIDE DIRECTED TRUST E-Mail(s): Dan.Ballesteros@HogeFent0n.com Ashlee.Cherry@HogeFenton.com Kenneth R. VanVleck, Esq. GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP 2570 W. E1 Camino Real, Suite 400 Mountain View, California 94040-13 14 Telephone: (650) 428-3900 Facsimile: (650) 428-3901 E-Mail(s): KVanVleck@GCALaw.com Meagen E. Leary, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, California 94105-1 127 Telephone: (415) 957-3230 Facsimile: (415) 520-0291 E-Mai1(s): MELeary@DuaneMorris.com Attorneysfor Guarantors Attorneyfor Lenders -23- Janet Bocek, et al. v. Vahe Tashiian, et al. SCSC Case Number 21CV376460 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS