Opposition ObjectionsCal. Super. - 6th Dist.March 23, 2021Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 7/26/2021 10:54 AM Reviewed By: A. Floresca Case #21CV381014 Envelope: 6921211 21CV381014 Santa Clara - Civil A. Floresca KOOOQQUI-PUJNH NNNNNNNNN ooqoxu‘gmwwoGoHoSEGEEEEE Rami Ka ali (201579) DEMIDC IK LAW FIRM PC 923 E. Valley Bl. Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776 TEL_ 626-31 7-0033 raml@dem|dchiklawfirm.com Attorneys for Defendant: Jun Lin SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA H. L. b and through her guardian Ad CASE NO: 21CV381014 Litem, .W and ?gw and through her guardian Ad Litem, OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ORDER; DECLARATION OF RAMI v. KAYYALI; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN JUN LlN and DOES 1 through 10, SUPPORT THEREOF INCLUSIVE; DATE: 7/26/2021 TIME: 2:30 PM Defendants. DEPT: 20 HON.: Socrates P. Manoukian ' 1 ' C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsk|op\LCZ\AAA DEMIDCHIKmin Jun\CiviI Cnsc\0pposiliun (a Motion for meclivc Ordch'rm OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \DOOQONUi-bUJNy-n NNNNNNNNN mummgwm~035333355:3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES FACTUAL BACKGROUND ‘ Plaintiffs served defendant served with two statements of damages, r requesting $50 million on behalf of each of his daughters (Exhibit 1). This includes ten million in future medical expenses and ten million in loss of earning capacity for each of his daughters. HL was born on 9/19/2003 and will be 18 yro in a couple of months. CL was born on 6/3/2006 and is 15 yro. There is evidence of coaching by plaintiffs' Guardian. XW filed for dissolution of marriage on 11/16/2017 (Exhibit 2). Therein, XW alleged that she and Respondent separated on 12/2/2016. While they remained living in the same house for the next four years, they resided together in a state of "cold war" On December 18, 2020, XW emailed defendant, stating, "I could consider not to reveal what you did if you could cooperate with the divorce process." (Exhibit 3). As a justification for reducing the length and scope of the depositions, plaintiffs' counsel conceded that plaintiffs have no independent recollection of the incidents. This is memorialized in four un-rebutted defense letters to plaintiffs' counsel (Exhibits 4-7). The defense remains willing to shorten the depositions provided plaintiffs stipulate that they have no independent recollection of the incidents. And, defendant is willing to attend the depositions remotely without interacting with his daughters and without them being aware of his presence. Given that XW was willing to "bury" the alleged incidents if defendant cooperated in the divorce, the events could not have been so traumatic so as to justify a protective order prohibiting the depositions. Defendant sympathizes with his daughters HL and CL. However, per the allegations in the complaint, they did not remember any of the alleged events. And as plaintiffs' counsel confirmed, CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events. So, they cannot claim to be traumatized to the extent that they require protective orders. And, depositions are never comfortable for any deponent. '2' C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcshop\LC2\AAA DEMIDCHIK\Lin Jun\Ci\'i| Casc\0pposilion to Motion for Pmtccuw OrderJ'rm OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER N \OOOVQMAUJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The defense has no intention of inquiring into HL and CL's sexual history and is only focused on the events alleged in the complaint. Plaintiffs' "consent" cannot be an issue as a matter of law as CL and XL are minors. 1. DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO DIRECTLY DEPOSE XL AND CL REGARDING THE INCIDENTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT The defense is entitled to take unlimited, in-person depositions of these plaintiffs as would be the case with any other plaintiffs. A party is entitled to unfettered cross-examination of adverse witnesses. The defense needs to be present in-person for this. This gives the defense the opportunity to take the depositions with few or no restrictions, ask follow up questions, read body language, prevent attorney coaching, and direct the deposition as necessary. The party noticing and taking a deposition gets to control the manner and means of the deposition, not the deponent. And the party seeking a protective order to limit or restrict a party's right to deposition discovery bears a heavy burden. The case law cited by plaintiffs favors the defense: "Although the scope of discovery is generally broad, discovery is limited to matters that are “not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017(a); Greyhound Corp. v. Super. Ct. (1961) 56 Ca|.2d 355, 384.) Information is relevant if it might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing fortrial or facilitating settlement thereof. (Gonzalez v. Super. Ct. (City of San Fernando) (1995) Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546; Lipton v. Super. Ct. (Lawyers’ Mut. Ins. Co.) (1996) 48. Cal.App.4th 1599, 1611.) In addition, § 2017(a)'s “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” criteria define the scope of discovery as one of reason, logic and common sense. (Lipton v. Super. Ct, supra, 48, Cal.App.4th, at 161 1 .)" Plaintiffs state that the defense cannot delve into "privilege" in the depositions. But the defense does not seeks to delve into "privilege." The only exception may be ‘3 ' C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsklop\LC2\AAA DEMlDCHlK\Lin Jun\Ci\'il Casc\0pposilion la Motion for Prolcclivc Ordch'nn OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \OOOQONU‘t-PWNH NNNNNNNNN mqmmpwwao$$33335538 the physician-patient "privilege," but the filing of the lawsuit triggers the patient-litigant exception to the privilege under Evidence Code section 1016. (Gerner y. Superior Ct, 204 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595, 609 (Ct. App. 2016), reh'g granted, opinion not citeable (Aug. 5, 2016)) The plaintiffs are obligated to show "good cause" for their motion, otherwise such a motion should be denied if there is a failure to show "good cause." Here, they fail miserably. The most that they say is that giving of depositions will cause them to be emotional or impair their mental health. Any plaintiff could say this. They chose to file the lawsuit. If they're not happy with their choice, they can always nonsuit their case. But being emotionally challenged by the deposition process is the result oftheir voluntary filing ofthe complaint. The courts cannot and do not grant protective orders to protect ordinary litigants' mental health from the litigation decisions they make of their own free will. They want to be accusers; but they don't want to be confronted by the accused. That's not how our American judicial system works. Trial courts issuing discovery orders and appellate courts reviewing those orders should do so with the pro-discovery policies of the statutory scheme firmly in mind. A trial court must be mindful of the Legislature's preference for discovery over trial by surprise, must construe the facts before it liberally in favor of discovery, may not use its discretion to extend the limits on discovery beyond those authorized by the Legislature, and should prefer partial to outright denials of discovery. (Williams v. Superior Ct. (2017) 3 Cal. 5th 531, 540, 398 P.3d 69, 75, citing, Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378, 383, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) The discovery statutes were intended to curtail surprises, enable each side to learn as much as possible about the strengths and weaknesses of its case, and thereby facilitate realistic settlements and efficient trials. (Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 543, citing Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 253, fn. 2, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 70, 991 P.2d 156; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal.2d at p. 376, 15 '4' C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsklop\LC2\AA/\ DEMIDCHIK\Lin Jun\Ci\'il Cnsc\0pposilioll lo Molion for Protective Ordenl'rm OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LWN \OOONQUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) In the absence of a contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. “Any party mayobtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010; see Davies v. Superior Coun‘ (1984) 36 Cal.3d 291, 301, 204 Cal.Rptr. 154, 682 P.2d 349 [“discovery is not limited to admissible evidence”].) This right includes an entitlement to learn “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.” (§ 2017.010) Section 2017.01 0 and other statutes governing discovery “must be construed liberally in favor of disclosure unless the request is clearly improper by virtue of weII-established causes for denial.” (Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 541, citing, Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal.2d at p. 377, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) This means that “disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.” (Id. at p. 378, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) A reviewing court may not use the abuse of discretion standard to shield discovery orders that fall short: “Any record which indicates a failure to give adequate consideration to these concepts is subject to the attack of abuse of discretion, regardless of the fact that the order shows no such abuse on its face.” (Williams, 3 Cal. 5th at 540, citing Greyhound Corp., 56 Cal.2d at p. 384, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266; see Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Superior Courf (1970) 2 Cal.3d 161, 171, 84 Cal.Rptr. 718, 465 P.2d 854.) As was said in DeMayo v. Superior Court (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 392, 394, 11 Cal.Rptr. 157, 159, cited with approval in Greyhound: ‘While as a general rule the trial court has a broad discretion in permitting or denying discovery where discovery is sought as to a nonprivileged matter which is directly relevant to the issues before the court, there is no room for the exercise of discretion, for the party seeking to discover is entitled'to it as a matter of right.’ (Morris Stu/saft Found, 245 Cal. App. ‘5 ' C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsklcp\LCZ\AAA DEMIDCHIK\Lin Jun\Ci\'il Cnsc\0pposilion lo Molion for Pmlcclivc OrdcrIml OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER N \DOONQUI-FUJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2d at416, 54 Cal. Rptr. 12, 17.) The test which prevailed prior to the enactment of the current discovery scheme. Matters sought are properly discoverable if they will aid in a party's preparation for trial. (Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 2 Cal. 3d at 172-73, citing, Morris Stulsaft Found, 245 Cal.App.2d at 423, 54 Cal.Rptr. 12; cf. Carrier Mfg. Co. v. Rex Chainbelt Inc. (D.Wis.1968) 281 F.Supp. 717, 718.) ln addition, because all issues and argument that will come to light at trial often cannot be ascertained at a time when discovery is sought, courts may appropriately give the applicant substantial leeway, especially when the precise issues of the litigation of the governing legal standards are not clearly established (Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 2 Cal. 3d at 172-73, citing, Tatkin v. Superior Court (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 745, 752-765, 326 P.2d 201 .) Deposing plaintiffs is critical to the defense. The defense intends to subject CL and HL to independent medical exams by a forensic psychiatrist/psychologist, pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, et seq. The depositions will be important for the defense expert's analysis. To that end, both depositions must be in person, videotaped and detailed. Thereby, the defense needs both CL and HL to avail themselves for full depositions, at the defense offices. And, the law clearly permits the depositions. 2. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT MET THEIR BURDEN TO JUSTIFY A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROHIBITING THEIR DEPOSITIONS “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (a); cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (a).) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order thatjustice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b); cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031 .060, '6‘ C:\Uscrs\Uscr]\Dcsklop\LCZ\AAA DEMIDCHIK\Lin Jun\Ci\'il Casc\0pposilicn la Malian for Pmlcclivn OrderImI OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \OOOflQUI-bbde-n NNNNNNNNNH mqmmsmw~oo533335535 subd. (b).) Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), provides a nonexclusive list of permissible directions that may be included in a protective order. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.060, subd. (b).) Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 261, 316, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 173, 218.) The propriety of the protective order is a different issue. “The state has two substantial interests in regulating pretrial discovery. The first is to facilitate the search for truth and promote justice. The second is to protect the legitimate privacy interests of the litigants and third parties. [Citation] ‘The interest in truth and justice is promoted by allowing liberal discovery of information in the possession of the opposing party. [Citation] The interest in privacy is promoted by restricting the procurement or dissemination of information from the opposing party upon a showing of 'good cause.” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 261, 317, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 173, 219.) Where a party must resort to the courts, “the burden is on the party seeking the protective order to show good cause for whatever order is sought. [Citation.]” (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 261, 318, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 173, 219.) Without an opportunity for discovery as of right, parties would face substantial barriers to effective trial preparation, with results inimical to the overall purpose of the discovery statutes to reduce litigation costs, expedite trials, avoid surprise, and encourage settlement. In virtually every case, parties would be required to seek court approval and demonstrate good cause for any discovery requests. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 253, 991 P.2d 156, 161.) A central purpose of the Discovery Act was to keep the trial courts out of the business of refereeing day-to-day discovery by requiring parties to conduct discovery and resolve disputes with minimal judicial involvement. As Justice Epstein explained, one of the “running themes” of the Discovery Act was to avoid delays and reduce the judicial costs of litigating discovery disputes. (Epstein, The Civil Discovery Act of '7' C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsk|op\LC2\AAA DEMIDCHIKlin Jun\Ci\-i| Casc\0pposilinn Io Malian for meclh‘c Ordenfnn OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER #UJN \OOONONUI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1986, supra, 10 L.A. Lawyer, at p. 21.) (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 253-54, 991 P.2d 156, 162.) Like the Court of Appeal in Beverly Hospital, we are disinclined to adopt a construction of the discovery provisions that “Would plunge the trial and appellate courts back into a sea of discovery disputes when their dockets are already at flood stage." (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 247, 991 P.2d 156, 157, citing, Beverly Hospital v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1296, 24 CaI.Rptr.2d 238.) A natural person may be deposed only once during the run of the litigation. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025, subd. (t).) In the absence of any abuse of the discovery procedures, we discern no reason consistent with the legislative intent underlying the Discovery Act to require parties preparing for a new trial to draft and file discovery motions to show good cause before they can make discovery requests. Permitting parties to conduct discovery as of right will not prevent the superior court from setting a prompt and realistic date for retrial or preventing actual discovery abuse. By contrast, requiring the superior court and the appellate courts to engage in the costly and time-consuming task of overseeing the minutiae of discovery between parties will only increase the opportunities for unnecessary delays and gamesmanship. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 245, 255, 991 P.2d 156, 162.) The Discovery Act (Code Civ.Proc. §§ 2016-2036) confers upon litigants the right to take depositions without prior court order or approval and, accordingly, with an exception not here applicable, does not require any showing of good cause for the taking of depositions. (Kramer v. Superior Ct. of Los Ange/es Cty., 237 Cal. App. 3d at 755-56 (1950), citing Coy v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.2d 210, 220-221, 23 CaI.Rptr. 393, 373 P.2d 457; Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 355, 388, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266.) The standard for exercise of the right or statutory limitation thereon is found in section 2016(b) which provides ‘the deponent may be examined regarding any "‘8 “ C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcskmp\LC2\AAA DEMIDCHlKlin Jun\Ci\'iI Cnsc\0pposiliml lo Motion l'or Protective Ordch‘nn OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \DOONONUI-b 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party, or to the claim or defense of any other party.’ (Kramer, 237 Cal. App. 3d at 755-56.) The statutory scheme expressly requires a showing of good cause by a' person who Seeks to resist or restrict the right to take a deposition by invoking the discretion of the court to issue a protective order. (|d., citing Hauk v. Superior Court, 61 Ca|.2d 295, 38 CaI.Rptr. 345, 391 P.2d 825; Carlson v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.2d 431, 15 Ca|.Rptr. 132, 364 P.2d 308; Oak Grove School Dist. v. City Title Ins. Co., 217 Cal.App.2d 678, 32 CaI.Rptr. 288.) In Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Coun‘, supra, 56 Cal.2d 355, 378, 15 Cal.Rptr. 90, 100, 364 P.2d 266, 276, the court stated, ‘For the guidance oftrial courts the proper rule [of construction of the discovery statutes] is declared to be not only one of liberal interpretation, but one that also recognizes that disclosure is a matter of right unless statutory or public policy considerations clearly prohibit it.’ A party is entitled to take the testimony of his opponent before trial for the purpose of discovery. (Code Civ.Proc. § 2016.) The party who is examined is required to answer fairly all proper questions which are put to him. Meyer v. Cooper, 233 Cal. App. 2d 750, 754, 44 Cal. Rptr. 57, 59 (Ct. App. 1965) The new statutes were enacted to promote, and have been interpreted in keeping with, the theory of expediting ‘the trial of civil matters by allowing litigants an adequate means of discovery during the period of preparation for trial. (Hauk v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cty. (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 295, 298, 391 P.2d 825, 826.) But the court's power to order ‘that the deposition shall not be taken, or that it may be taken only’ at some other time or place, or in some other manner than as proposed, or that scope of the questions be limited or controlled in certain specified manners, is not unlimited. (ld.) The very language of the statute thus limits the discretion which it has created to situations wherein good cause has been shown, or where justice requires the exercise of that discretion. (|d.) ‘9 ' C:\Uscrs\Usch\Dcsklop\LCZ\AAA DEMIDCHIK\LiII Jun\Ci\‘i| Casc\0pposilion lo Molion for Prmcclivc 0rdcr.fnn OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER H NNNNNNNNN \oooQQUxblmN There can be no room for the exercise of such discretion if no ground exists upon which it might operate. (Hauk, 61 Cal. 2d at 298, citing, Carlson v. Superior Court (19 61) 56 Cal.2d 431, 437-438, 15 CaI.Rptr. 132, 364 P.2d 308.) Where no 'claim of privilege is addressed to the testimony sought to be elicited from the deponent, the sole function for the appellate court in determining the propriety of the trial court's order inhibiting or compelling testimony is to ascertain whether the latter court abused its discretion. Morris Stulsaft Found. v. Superior Ct. ln & For City & Cty. of San Francisco, 245 Cal. App. 2d 409, 415, 54 Cal. Rptr. 12, 16 (Ct. App. 1966) While the discovery statutes vest a wide discretion in the trial court in granting or denying discovery, the ‘appellate courts in passing on orders granting or denying discovery should not use the trial court's discretion argument to defeat the liberal policies of the statute.’ (Morris Stu/saft Found, 245 Cal. App. 2d at 416, citing Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 378-379, 15 Ca|.Rptr. 90, 101, 364 P.2d 266, 277; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 743, 748, 16 CaI.Rptr. 851 .) Plaintiffs have a weighty burden when seeking a protective order. There is no specific privilege that is being invaded. Plaintiffs have not met their burden. 3. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully request that the court deny plaintiffs' motion and order plaintiffs to avail themselves for deposition within the next fifteen days. Dated: July 23, 2021 _ ls Rami Kayyall RAMI KAYYALI Attorneys for Defendant Lin Jun By: ' 1 0'C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsklop\LC2\AAA DEMIDCHIKlin Jun\Ci\'il Cnsc\0pposilion Io Motion for Protective Ordcrfrm OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER \OOOQQUILUJNp-A NNNNNNNNNH mqmmgmm~oo§o35§33$§58 l, Rami Kayyali, declare: 1. That I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all of the courts in the State of California and the attorney of record for defendant. | have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts and if called upon I could and would competently testify to the following: 2. The following Exhibits attached hereto are true and correct copies thereof: Exhibit # DESCRIPTION Statements of Damages Petition for Dissolution filed on 11/6/2017 email from XW to defendant dated 12/19/2020 Defense Letter to Plaintiffs 6/14/2021 Defense Letter to Plaintiffs 6/21/2021 Defense Letter to Plaintiffs 7/6/2021 VOU‘l-thA Defense Letter to Plaintiffs 7/21/2021 | declare under penalty of perjury, and on information and belief, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 23rd day of July 2021, at San Gabriel, California. ls Rami Kayyali RAMI KAYYALI, Declarant ' 1 1 'C:\Uscrs\Uscr3\Dcsklop\LC2\AAA DEMIDCHIK\Lin Jun\Ci\'il Cnsc\0pposition Io Motion {or Pmlnclivc Ordenl'ml OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER EXHIBIT 1 - DO NOT FILE WITH THE COURT- ClV-OSO -UNLESS YOU AREAPPLYING FOR A DEFAULTJUDGMENT UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 585 - ATTORNEY 0R9mm wm-qour Arronmsv (Name and Addmssr rELEPHous No: For: caumusa ONLYJAMES C. HANN, ESQ. 408-755-9793 ' Hann Law Firm ' SBN: #25778 84 W Santa Clara St Ste 790, San Jose, CA 951 13-18”) Fax number: 408-702-2434 email: jamcs@hannlawfirmcom AWORNEYFO"("nmel‘Plaimiffs H.L. and C.L.: bv and throuuh their GAL SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F SANTA CLARA smsemnunsss: [9| North First Street MAILING ADDRESS: l9! North First Street cnrv AND ZIP cone: San Jose. 9S] 13 BRANcfi NAME: Downtown Superior Court PLAINTIFle-LL. and C.L.; by and through their GAL DEFENDANTIJun Lin and Docs 1 through IO Inclusive STATEMENT 0F DAMAGES Z‘SENKMBER‘ , (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) ‘ICV’SIOH To (name of one defendant only).‘JUN LIN Plaintiff (name 0f 0'79 Plain’WONIY)-'C.L.. by and through lhc GAL seeks damages in the above-entitled action. as follows: 1. General damages AMOUNT a. Pain. suffering. and inconvenience .................................................................................................... S IQQQQQQQ b. Emotional distress. ............................................................................................................................. S 000 c.D Loss of consortium ............................................................................................................................. S d.D Loss of sociey and companionship (wrongful death actions only) ..................................................... s e.E Other (specify) .................................................................................................................................. 5 r. E Other (specify) .................................................................................................................................. $-§ g.E Continued on Attachment 1.9. 2. Special damages a.E Medical expenses (to date) $ b. [E Future medical expenses (present value) .......................................................................................... 5 10000000 c.E Loss of eamings (Io dale) .......................... . ........................................................................................ 5 d.m Loss of future earning capacity (present value) s |QQQQQQQ e.E Properly damage ................................................................................................................................ $ f. D Funeral expenses (wrongfuldealh actions only) ................................................................................ $ g.D Future contributions (present value) (wrongfuldeath actions only) $ h.E Value of personal service. advice. or training (wrongful death actions only) ...................................... S i. E Olher (specify) _ 5 1- D Other (specify) ............................................................................................................................. k.D Continued nn Atlanhmanl 2J1, 3. Punitive damages: Plaintiff reserves the right lo seek punilive damages in the amount of (specify). $ 10000000 when pursuing a judgment in the suit filed against you. Datezrvtay 3. 2021 }JAMES C. lleNN. ESO. (YYFE OR PRINT NAME) (Proof of service on reverse) Form Adopted 10! Mandatory Use STATEMENT OF DAMAGES ICLI . 'l DfC. m I . CIJV-fisgfigyarflnum; $3371 (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) (SIGNATURED ' INTIF GMRNEY FORPLMNTIFF) Page 1 a! 2 Coda 05¢in Procedure. §§ 425.1 I, A25 115 www courfinfo. ca guv Wesllaw Doc h Farm Eullder - Do NorFILE WITH THE COURT- C'V'°5° -u~LEss you ARE APPLYING FOR A DEFAULTJUDGMENT UNDER cons 0F CIVIL PROCEDURE § 585 - ArronNEv 0R pARrv wnmour AUORNEY mama and Address): TELEPHONE No.: FOR counr use ONLV JAMES C. HANN. ESQ. . 408-755-9793 Hann Law Firm i ' SBN: #215778 84 W Santa Clara St Ste 790, San Jose, CA 951 13-1810 fax number: 408-702-2434 email: james@hannlawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR (MmeJ‘Plaintiffs H.L. and C.L.: by and through their GAL SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA smssrwonsss: l9l North First Street MAILING ADDRESS: 19] North First Street cnrvANu zwcone: San Jose, 951 l3 BRANCH NAME: Dowmown Superior Court PLAINTIFF:H.L. and C.L.; by and through their GAL DEFENDANT:Jun Lin and Docs l through lO Inclusive cAsa NUMBER: STATEMENT OF DAMAGES (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) 21CV38 [0 M To (name of one defendanl only):JUN LIN Plaintiff (name of one plaintiff only):l-[,L_, by and through the GAL seeks damages in the above-enliued action. as follows: 1. General damages AMOUNT a. Pain. suffering. and inconvenience ................................................................................................. S 19999999 b. Emotional distress. .................................................. S IQQQQQQQ c‘D Loss of consonium ............................................................................................................................. $ d.D Loss of sociey and companionship (wrongful death actions only) ..................................................... 5 e‘E 0W” (Specify) .................................................................................................................................. 5______ r- E3 0mer(specifw .................................................................................................................................. $#____ g.B Continued on Attachment 1.9. 2. Special damages a.D Medical expenses (to date) ............................................................................................. . ...... $ b.m Future medical expenses (present value) ................................................................................ S 10000000 c.E Loss of earnings (lo dale) ............................................................................................................ $ d.m Loss of future earning capacity (present value) s mQQQgQQ e.E Property damage ............................................................................................................................ S f. E: Funeral expenses (wrongful death actions only) ................................................................................ $ g.E Future contributions (present value) (wrongful death actions only) .................................................... 5 h. E3 Value of personal service. advice. or training (wrongful death actions only) ...................................... S i- £3 Other (specify) .................... . ............................................................................................................. s_____ i. E3 Other (specify) .................................................................................................................................. s______ k.E Cominucu on Attachmone 24“ 3.m Punitive damages: Plaintiff reserves the right to seek punitive damages in the amount of (specify).. S 10000000 when pursuing a judgment in the suit filed against you. Date: May 3, 202k ’ z, JAMES C. HANN. ESQ. [TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATUREOFW OR ATTORNEY FDR PLAINTIFF) (Proof of service on reverse) P“. 1 m Farm Adopted 1m Mandatory Use STATEMENT 0F DAMAGES cw" “cw“ Pmcedmifi‘czwsffiklifil‘j cf§$l$'(gganfgnfia$yal{°2'3'3n (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) wmawooéam annua- EXHIBIT 2 PAR” Vflmu’? ATTORNEY OH ATTORNEY STATE BAR "0.: NRwWUSE ONLY mm: Xiaowen Wang 1":BIIIEE1D7 1 2. Mmamas: 20010 De Palma Lane ;‘ -°° A am Cupertino, CA 95014 : lerk 9f Court rasmoue N0; 908-2404825 ' UPQFIOF court 0f CA, ICounty of Santa Clara E-MAIL ADDRESS: monmsoarmk Self-Re - resented ‘ 7FL004571SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F ‘ .mmmmzm North First Street ev'ewed By‘ T' Dem" mmamnssg 201 North First Streetmum npcooesan JOSE, CA 95113 BRANCH NAME: Famil court PENTIONEH: 'Iaowen a'ng RESPONDENT: Jun Lin Pennon Fon D AMENDEDm Dissolution (olvorcem: Marriage D Domestic PartnershipD LegalSeparation 01: D Marriage D Domestic Partnership 17FL004571D Nulmy oi: D Marriage D Domestic Pamershlp 1. LEGAL RELATIONSHIP (check all (hat apply): a. m We are married. b. a We are domestic partners and our domesfic partnership was established In Céiifomla. c. a We are domestic partners and our domestic pamership was NOT established “in California. 2. RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS (check Ell [hat apply): 1 a. m Petitioner m Respondent has been a resident of this slate for a1 least s‘ix months and of this counky for at least three monlhs (mmedialely preceding the flung o! this Petition. (For a divorce. a? least one person In the legal relationship described In items Ia and ic must comp(y with this requirement.) b. D Our domestic partnership was established In Califomla. Neither of us has to ba a resident or have a domicile In Cali!omia to dissolve our partnetship here. c. D We are lhe same sen were married in Califomla, but currently live in a jurisdiction that does not recognize. and will not dissolve. our marriageIhls Parib'on is mad in lhe county where we married. Petitioner lives in (specify): Respondent lives In (specify): 3. STATISTICAL FACTS I a. (1) Date of marriage (specim: 6/30/1 995 (2) Date o! separafion (spedfy): 12/2/2015 ‘ (3) Time from date of marriage lo data of separation (specify): 21 Yeais 5 Monlhs b. D (1) Registration date of domestic partnership with the California Secretary of State or other state equfvalent (specify below): (2) Dale of separation (specify): (3) Tlme from date of registration of domestic partnership lo dale of separatlon (specify): Years Months 4. MINOR CHILDREN ‘ a. D There are no minor children. b. The minor children are: t Child's ngme Bighggge 53g E Heidi Lin 9/19/2003 14 F Clare Lin 613/2006 11 F (1)D continued on anachmeng 4b. (2)D a child who is not yet born. the court has the authority to determinec. If any children listed above were bom betore the marriage or domestic pannershlp. * [hose children to be children of the marriage or domestic partnership. d. If there are minor children of Petitioner and Respondent. a completed Declaration Under Uniform mild Custody Jurisdiction and Enlorcemanr Ac: (UWJEA) (form FL-1 05) must be attached. e. D Petitioner and Respondent signed a voluntary declaration of paternity. A copy ‘D is D is no! attached. m" o“mumwtauwam Um PET" lOfi-MARRIAngnmSTIC PARTNERSHIP Fumymssm.mmo.%{mJun.“ Coma": o: c'awomla CH3. Mafia, (Family Law) EXHIBIT 3 l'ruln: Alauwen vvang To: Jun Lin Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2020. 08:39:04 AM PST Subject: Re: Move out You were in her bed and molested her. Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2020. at 1:08 AM. Jun Lin wrote: EUFEFEH’AE? Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, December 19, 2020, 12:42 AM, Xiaowen Wang wrote: She just told me what you did to her. Even though she was only 8 when this happened and she was too scared or too loving you to come out then. it does not mean that she did not remember and more importantly that she was not hurt or hurt any less now. l am deeply ashamed when Claire said that she can keep on pretending nothing happens if that can make my life easier. If you still care for her in any little way. please do the right thing. On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 10:47 PM Jun Lin wrote: IJEEEWQHZT? M‘ffififififitfl‘fii? Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, December 18, 2020, 10:25 PM, Xiaowen Wang i wrote: | only learned tonight what you have done to Claire and Heidi. l don't know what kind of person can hurt them like you did. l can only wish you understand sexual assault is a serious crime. Both girls and l can not accept to live under the same roof with anymore. I am here to ask you to move out. just to give the girls a safe and comfortable place to live. This is the least that you can do for them. lwill ask my lawyer to proceed with the divorce and seek sole custody of the kids. My only wish now is to have a swift divorce and give kids their life back and give them time to heal. ‘l could consider not to reveal what you did if you could cooperate with the divorce process.. But l would respect the decision of the girls on this matter. They are both strong and intelligent persons. l am proud of them that they stand up for themselves after all these years. Please let me know when you can move out. EXHIBIT 4 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91 776DemidChik T: 626-317-0033 Law FII'm r F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com E: contact@dcklaw¥firm;com June 14, 2021 James C. Hann Jeewon Kim Moonhwan Kim HANN LAW FIRM 84 W Santa Clara St Ste 790 San Jose, CA 95113-1810 Phone: 408-755-9793 james@hann|awfirm.com jeewon@hann|awfirm.com moon@hannlawfirm.com Re: CL, HL and XL v Jun Li. SCSC Case # 21CV381014 Esteemed Counsel: We considered your proposals for protective order. We intend to subject CL and HL to independent medical exams by a forensic psychiatrist/psychologist, pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, et seq. The depositions will be important for our expert’s analysis. To that end, both depositions must be in person, videotaped and detailed. Thereby, we will need both CL and HL to avail themselves for full depositions, at our offices (CA opens completely on 6/15/2021 and there is no covid grounds for remote depositions). Flushing, NY Office: 136-18 39‘“ Ave.,8”‘ Floor, Flushing, NY 11354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Grea’t America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606 Page 1 of 2 You indicated to me that CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events and this justifies shortened depositions. While, ultimately the depositions may prove to be short because CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events, we cannot commit to shorter depositions in advance. After all, your clients are suing for $100 million. We will lagree to the Santa Clara Court model protective order. Our client will agree to observe the depositions remotely via video and will mute his video and audio so that they do not see or hear him. My sympathies to HL and CL. However, per the allegations in the complaint, they did not remember any of the alleged events. And you confirmed, CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events. So, they cannot claim to be traumatized to the extent that they need protective orders. Please provide me with dates for CL, HL and XL’s depositions asap. Thank you for your professional courtesy. Sincerely, The Demidchik Law Firm /s Rami Kayyali By, RAMI KAYYALI Page 2 0f 2 EXHIBIT 5 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776DemidChik T: 626-317-0033 Law Flrm F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com E: mvztact@dck-lawfirm-..com June 21, 2021 James C. Hann Jeewon Kim Moonhwan Kim HANN LAW FIRM 84 W Santa Clara St Ste 790 San Jose, CA 951 13-1810 Phone: 408-755-9793 james@hann|awfirm.com jeewon@hannlawfirm.com moon@hann|awfirm.com Re: CL, HL and XL v Jun Li. SCSC Case # 21CV381014 Esteemed Counsel: We considered your proposed protective order. We are not agreeable to the deposition portion which states: 16. Given the allegations and facts in dispute in this matter, the parties hereby stipulate that all depositions to be taken will be taken either by: a) Written Deposition; or b) Deposition by video or phone conference. Reaffirming our letter of 6/14/2021, we intend to subject CL and HL to independent medical exams by a forensic psychiatrist/psychologist, pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, et seq. The depositions will be important for our expert's analysis. To that end, both depositions must be in person, videotaped and Flushing, NY Office: 136-18 39‘" Ave.,8"‘ Floor, Flushing, NY 11354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606 Page 1 of 2 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC V 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 ° ' San Gabriel, CA 91776DemldChlk T: 626-3 17-0033 F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com Law Firm ......... detailed. Thereby, we will need both CL and HL to avail themselves for full depositions, at our offices. You indicated to me that CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events and this justifies shortened depositions. If you wish to shorten the depositions in advance, please provide a stipulation signed by HL, CL and HL, and their counsel, affirming CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events. Thereafter, we may consider shortening the deposition sessions or other accommodations. Please provide me with dates for CL, HL and XL’s depositions asap. Thank you for your professional courtesy. Sincerely, The Demidchik Law Firm /s Rami Kayyali By, RAMI KAYYALI Flushing, NY Office: 136-18 39‘“ Ave.,8"‘ Floor, Flushing, NY 11354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 6 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776DemidChik T: 626-317-0033 Law Firm F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com 'E: mntact@dck-lawfirmrcom July 6, 2021 James C. Hann Jeewon Kim Moonhwan Kim HANN LAW FIRM 84 W Santa Clara St, Ste. 790 San Jose, CA 951 13-1810 Phone: 408-755-9793 james@hannlawfirm.com jeewon@hann|awfirm.com moon@hann|awfirm.com Re: CL, HL and XL v Jun Li. SCSC Case # 21CV381014 Esteemed Counsel: This is a meet and confer letter pursuant to CCP sections 2025.450(b)(2) and 2016.040. The depositions of CL, HL and XL were initially calendared for June 8, 14 and 16. You have‘not produced the deponents and have not provided us with alternative dates. Please immediately provide us deposition dates for this month. If you fail to do so, we will resort to filing a motion to compel the depositions. Pursuant to CCP § 2016.080, we will consider an informal discovery conference (“|DC") to deal with this matter. If you wish to participate in an IDC, please provide us with plaintiffs’ position so that we may submit a joint IDC statement to the Court. Flushing, NY Office: 136-18 39m Ave.,8"‘ Floor, Flushing, NY 11354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606 Page 1 of 2 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776DemidChik T: 626-317-0033 Law FII'I'fl F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com ......... DEFENDANT’S POSITION We intend to subject CL and HL to independent medical exams by a forensic psychiatrist/psychologist, pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, et seq. The depositions will be important for our expert’s analysis. To that end, both depositions must be in person, videotaped and detailed. Thereby, we will need both CL and HL to avail themselves for full depositions, at our offices. You indicated to me that CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events and this justifies shortened depositions. If you wish to shorten the depositions in advance, please provide a stipulation signed by HL, CL, HL, and their counsel, affirming CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events. Thereafter, we may consider shortening the deposition sessions or other accommodations. We are agreeable to executing a standard SC Court protective order. Please provide us with dates for CL, HL and XL’s depositions asap and/or ' indicate plaintiffs’ position regarding depositions. Thank you for your professional courtesy. Sincerely, The Demidchik Law Firm ls Rami Kayyali By, RAMI KAYYALI Flushing, NY Office: 136-18 39‘“ Ave.,8”‘ Floor, Flushing, NY 1 1354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 7 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 ' ° 0 San Gabriel, CA 91776Demldchlk F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com E: contact@dcklawfirm.rcom Law Firm July21, 2021 James C. Hann Jeewon Kim Moonhwan Kim HANN LAW FIRM 84 W Santa Clara St, Ste. 790 San Jose, CA 951 13-1810 Phone: 408-755-9793 james@hannlawfirm.com jeewon@hannlawfirm.com moon@hannlawfirm.com Re: CL, HL and XL v Jun Lin SCSC Case # 21CV381014 Esteemed Counsel: This is a meet and confer letter pursuant to CCP sections 2025.450(b)(2) and 2016.040. The depositions of CL, HL and XL were initially calendared for June 8, 14 and 16. You have not produced the deponents and have not provided us with alternative dates. Please immediately provide us deposition dates for this month. If you fail to do so, we will resort to filing a motion to compel the depositions. Pursuant to CCP § 2016.080, we will consider an informal discovery conference (“IDC”) to deal with this matter. If you wish to participate in an IDC, please provide us with plaintiffs’ position so that we may submit a joint IDC statement to the Court. Flushing, NY Office: 136-1 8 39th Ave.,8‘h Floor, Flushing, NY 11354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606‘ Page 1 of 2 DEMIDCHIK LAW FIRM, PLLC 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268 San Gabriel, CA 91776DemidChik T: 626-317-0033 Law Flrm ' F: 212-810-7257 W: demidchiklawfirm.com E: cnntact@dcklawfinn-=.com DEFENDANT’S POSITION We intend to subject CL and HL to independent medical exams by a forensic psychiatrist/psychologist, pursuant to CCP § 2032.220, et seq. The depositions will be important for our expert’s analysis. To that end, both depositions must be in person, videotaped and detailed. Thereby, we will need both CL and HL to avail themselves for full depositions, at our offices. You indicated to me that CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events and this justifies shortened depositions. If you wish to shorten the depositions in advance, please provide a stipulation signed by HL, CL, HL, and their counsel, affirming CL and HL do not have any independent recollection of the alleged events. Thereafter, we may consider shortening the deposition sessions or other accommodations. We are agreeable to executing a standard SC Court protective order. Please provide us with dates for CL, HL and XL’s depositions asap and/or indicate plaintiffs’ position regarding depositions. Thank you for your professional courtesy. Sincerely, The Demidchik Law Firm ls Rami Kayyali By, RAMI KAYYALI Flushing, NY Office: 136-1 8 39‘“ Ave.,8‘“ Floor, Flushing, NY 11354 Orlando, FL Office: 150 N Orange Ave., Suite 407, Orlando, FL 32801 Los Angeles, CA Office: 923 E Valley Blvd, Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776 San Francisco, CA Office: 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 3208, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Chicago, IL Office: 150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2436, Chicago, IL 60606 Page 2 of 2 \OOONONUl-IBMNH NNNNNNNNNH mqmmgmNHooQSEGESSZS PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES l am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 923 E. Valley B|., Suite 268, San Gabriel, CA 91776. On July 23, 2021, l served the foregoing document described as: OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER to the interested party(ies) in this action by emailing a true copy addressed as follows: James C. Hann Jeewon Kim Moonhwan Kim HANN LAW FIRM 84 W Santa Clara St Ste 790 San Jose, CA 951 13-1810 Phone: 408-755-9793 james@hann|awfirm.com jeewon@hannlawfirm.com moon@hann|awfirm.com BY MAIL. l e-mailed such document to defendant at the above e-address. Executed this 23rd day of July 2021, at San Gabriel, California. | declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. ls Rami Kayyali RAM! KAYYALI " 1 2T:\Uscxs\Uscr3\Dcsklup\LC2\AAA DEMIDCHIK\Lin Jun\Ci\'il Cnsc\0pposilion lo Motion I'm Pmlcclivc OrderJ'n-n OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
