Declaration

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 3, 2021

Kim David Staskus (Ca. Bar No. 96137) STASKUS LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1631 Willow Street Suite 270 San Jose, CA 95125 408) 351-9262 408) 709-2509 (facsimile) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORMA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Jamie Ann Garrison, an individual, CASE NO. 21CV379118 10 12 vs. Plaintiff, Declaration of Kim David Staskus in Support of Motion to Quash or Limit The Scope of Subpoenas of Prior Employment Records 13 14 15 16 17 Frank P. Mikulastik, an individual, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants. Date: (TBD) Dept.: Time: Trial Date: None 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Kim David Staskus, declare as follows: 1. That I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts ofthe State of California, and that I am the attorney for the plaintiff herein, Jamie and Garrison. 2. Exhibit 1 to plaintiffs'oints and authorities is a true and accurate copy of the meet and confer letter that I drafted and sent to opposing counsel and his paralegal on January 18, 2022. Due to the January 24, 2022 copy date on the subpoenas, we specifically requested a response to our meet and confer letter by January 20, 2022. No such response was forthcoming. 3. Having received no response to our meet and confer letter, on January 21, 2022 Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 1/24/2022 2:02 PM Reviewed By: M. Dominguez Case #21CV379118 Envelope: 8123206 21CV379118 Santa Clara - Civil M. Dominguez 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 we wrote the email attached to this declaration as Exhibit 1, informing opposing counsel and his paralegal that if we did not hear back regarding our meet and confer attempt we would be filing a motion to quash on January 24, 2022. Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the original email we sent. 4. As of the filing of this motion on January 24, 2022 we have not received any response to our attempts to meet and confer regarding the subpoenas. Given the January 24, 2022 copy date we have no alternative but to file this motion today with a copy to Ontellus Copy Service instructing them not to copy documents without a court order. 5. I have spent 6 hours researching, drafting and preparing the moving papers on this motion. In addition, I anticipate another hour to review the file and prepare for the hearing and one hour to attend the hearing, for a total of 8 hours. My hourly rate after 41 years ofpractice is $400 per hour. The costs for our office to file this motion was $60. Therefore I am seeking attorney's fees and costs for this motion in the sum of $3260.00. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that I have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts set forth in this declaration. 19 20 Dated: January 24, 2022 STASKUS LAW FIRM, P.C. 21 22 23 By: Kim David Staskus Attorney for Plaintiff 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT ]I 1 Kim StaSkuS From: Sent: To: Subject: Kim Staskus &kstaskus@staskuslawfirm.corn& Friday, January 21, 2022 2:17 PM 'Ed.HawkyardOStateFarm.corn'; 'CALI LAW-PLEASANTON-ESERVICE'arrison v. Mikulastik Counsel, We have not heard back from you regarding our meet and confer letter of 1/18/22. If we do not hear back from you we will be filing a motion to quash on Monday, 1/24/22. Regards, Kim Staskus PROOF OF SERVICE 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case Name: Garrison v. Mikulastik Superior Court Case No.: 21CV379118 I am employed in the County ofSanta Clara, State ofCalifornia. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1631 Willow St. ¹270, San Jose, California 95125. On January 24, 2022, I served the foregoing documents, described as set forth below, on the interested parties in this action by emailing same to the email addresses listed below: Notice of Motion to Quash or Limit The Scope of Subpoenas of Prior Employment Records; Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in Support ofMotion to Quash or Limit The Scope of Subpoenas of Prior Employment Records; Declaration oQf Kim David Staskus in Support of Motion to Quash or Limit The Scope of Subpoenas of Prior Employment Records Served: cali.law-ed-hawkvard. 110o02&a.statefarm.corn Ed.HawkvardDa,State Farm.corn EDGAR W. HAWKYARD, ESQ. (SBN 126735) JEANETTE N. LITTLE8 ASSOCIATES Employees of the Law Department State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company 4450 Rosewood Drive, Suite 450 Pleasanton, CA 94588 (By Regular Mail) I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at San Jose, California, in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after deposit for mailing affidavit. (By Email) I caused such document(s) to be delivered by email to the office(s) of the addressee(s) listed above at the email addresses listed above. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Jose, California, on Jamuary 24, 2022. J hn M. Stask 27