Declaration

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

\OOOQQLIIAUJN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 21CV381 1 1O Santa Clara - Civil Michael G. Ackerman, Esq. (SBN 64997) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN 2391 The Alameda, Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 261-5800 Facsimile: (408) 261-5900 Email: mga@mgackermanlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL Y. Che Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 8/11/2021 11:10 AM Reviewed By: Y. Chavez Case #21 CV381 1 1 0 Envelope: 7039812 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ANNE TING, an individual; JACK TING, ) an individual; and NICOLE TING-YAP, an ) individual; g Plaintiffs, g vs. ) g PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, an individual; ) and DOES 1 through 10; g ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendants. Case No.: 21CV381110 DECLARATION 0F MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION To COMPEL RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONSES To REQUESTS To PRODUCE AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST NICOLE TING- YAP (c.C.P. SECTION 2031.310(A) and (H) Date: TBfi 12/1 6/21 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 7 Judge: Hon. Christopher G. Rudy I, Michael G. Ackerman, declare that I am the attorney for defendant Panida Chinsupakul in the above- entitled matter. I am associate counsel in the related family law matter. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy ofthe request for production of documents served by my office on Plaintiff, Nicole Ting-Yap. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the objections and responses we received. I attempted to informally resolve this discovery dispute by first sending emails to counsel for Plaintiff. A true and correct copy ofmy DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL VGZ CASE No.: 21CV381 l 10 OOOQONUI#UJN’-‘ NNNNNNNNNu-It-r-tu-I-In-np-nfln-t-n OONQLAAMN-IOOOOQQMAUJNfi-‘O emails and Ms. Langs' responses is attached hereto as Exhibit "C." I requested that we speak in person, over the telephone, which was done on July 22, 2021. Ms. Langs and I were not able to resolve this dispute. With respect to the documents responsive to requests number 4 and 5, Ms. Langs has insisted that a protective order be in place before they will produce the documents they have agreed to produce. I have also served a demand for disclosure of trade secrets under C.C.P. Section 2019.210 to which I have received no response. I and Ms. Langs reviewed a protective order that provided that the information or documents designated as "confidential" or "attorneys' eyes only" could not be provided or disclosed to Ms. Chinsupakul's family law attorneys. I objected to this as they are her counsel and need to have access to this information. I, as con-counsel in the family law case, would need to provide that information t0 them. My emails to and from Ms. Langs relating to the protective order are attached hereto as Exhibit "D." Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a copy of an income and expense declaration filed by Julian Ting in the family law case. Attached hereto as Exhibit "F" is an excerpt from the responsive declaration of Panida Chinsupakul in the family law matter outlining at pages 6 and 7 the amounts Julian has received from JCT Holdings or other family businesses. Lastly, attached as Exhibit "G" is a copy of a declaration ofWong Siew Ing relating to the transfer of 600,000 shares in Setima by Julian to his sister Nicole in November of 2000. These documents are not being submitted for the truth ofthe matter stated but instead to show that we have a good faith belief in the ability to prove the contentions we are making on this motion. Ihave spent 5.5 hours in preparing this motion to compel. I am charging my client $500.00 per hour for my services. It is requested that the court grant sanctions in the amount of $2,8 1 0.00 for reasonable attomeys' fees for bringing this motion and costs in the sum of $ 60.00 for filing fees. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in the City of Santa Clara, State of California, on August //, 2021. - 2 - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381 1 10 OOOQQUIADJNH NNNNNNNHH-a-d-du-tu-a-tn-n-n gSQMAWNHoomQQMAMNHO By: MCHAEL G. KCKERMAN, Attorney for efendant, PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL -3- CASE NO.: 21CV381110 EXHIBIT “A” to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) Michael G. Ackerman, Esq. (SBN 64997) LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. ACKERMAN 2391 The Alameda, Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 Telephone: (408) 261-5800 Facsimile: (408) 261-5900 Email: mga@mgackermanlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ANNE TING, an individual; JACK TING, an individual; and NICOLE TING-YAP, an individual; Case No.: 21CV381 1 10 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE Plaintiffs, TING-YAP- SET ONE VS. PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, an individual; and DOES l through 10; Defendants. PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant, PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, NICOLE TING-YAP SET NUMBER ONE: ONE Pursuant to the provisions of C.C.P. § 203 l .010 et seq., Defendant PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, hereby requests that on June 29, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. at the Law Offices of Michael G. Ackerman, located at 2391 The Alameda, Suite 100, Santa Clara, CA 95050, Plaintiff, NICOLE TING-YAP, produce and permit the examination and reproduction of the following documents and other tangible items specified in the Schedule of Items to be Produced in this request. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ---"£L---- TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TING-YAP- SET ONE CASE NO.: 1CV381 l 10 \OWVGUI-thv-i NNNNNNHHHHHv-H-AH- In lieu of producing the documents and other tangible items described at said time and place, requesting party will accept copies of said items, at reasonable expense to requesting party, provided such copies are delivered to the above address before said date, or at a time and date stipulated to by the party producing the material and the party requesting production of the material, through their attorneys of record, in writing, and provided further that the production includes a properly executed verification under penalty of perjury that the ccpies of said items are accurate and true copies ofthe complete records and items requested below. This does not mean, in the event photographs or negatives ofphotographs are requested, that requesting party will accept photographs of the prints of photographs, but does mean that requesting party will accept copy prints of the negatives, at reasonable expense to this requesting party. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to the provisions 0f C.C.P. § 2031, written response to this request, subscribed under oath, is Legyggd within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this request. Said response shall identify the documents, papers, and other tangible items that fall within the category specified in this request, and shall state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested, unless this request is objected to, in which case the reasons for the objections shall be stated. INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this request and your responses thereto, the following instructions and definitions shall be applicable: "DOCUMENTS" shall include the original and all copies of handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures,‘sounds or symbols, or combinations thereof, each to include all enclosures, attachments, appendices, and matters incorporated therein by reference. "COMMUNICATIONS." The term "COMMUNICATIONS" includes any written, telephonic, electronic, digital, or in-person exchange of information between PERSONS, including but not limited to telephone conversations, telephone messages, voice mail (VM) messages, meetings, correspondence, notes, facsimile machine transmission (faxes), e-mails, text messages (short message - 2 _ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TING-YAP- SET ONE CASE NO.: 1CV381110 \OOONGM-hDJN-a- NNNNNMNv-on-tu-tmy-In-‘n-tt-fig-IH gSQM-fiWNHOOWQQM-FWNHO service or "SMS"), instant messages, video conferences, Internet chat, Internet telephone (voice over IP or "VoIP") conversations, virtual private networking (VPN) exchanges, social media site (Facebook, Linkedln, etc.) postings/exchanges, Twitter postings/exchanges ("tweets"), telegraphs, physical signals (gestures, hand signals, etc.), or any other form of exchange of information. If you refuse production of any requested document or thing as privileged or for any other reason, please identify that document or thing by stating in writing the nature of the document or thing withheld (e.g., letter, memorandum, note, etc.), its author, the recipients of the original and any copies, its dates, a general description of its subject matter, and the reason for its non-production. The documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things described below are currently in the possession, custody and control of this responding party, are not privileged, and are relevant to the subject matter of this action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this action. Failure to comply with this Request will result in a formal motion to compel production of each item, and all costs incurred in bringing said motion, including attorneys' fees, will be requested. SCHEDULE OF ITEMS TO BE PRODUCED REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. l: Any and all writings (as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) which relate or refer to the transfer of the shares held by Julian Ting and Nicole Ting in J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd to Setima Sdn Bhd at any time on or before June 12, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Any and all writings (as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) which refer or relate t0 the transfer of 600,000 shares held by Julian Ting in Setima Sdn Bhd to Nicole Ting at any time on or after January 1, 2000, to the present including but not limited to, all writings describing the consideration given by Nicole Ting to Julian Ting for the transfer of said shares. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: The Financial Statements and Reports prepared by Setima Sdn Bhd and J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd for _ 3 - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TING-YAP- SET ONE CASE NO.: lCV38l l 10 \OOOQQMAUJNH NNNNNNNHr-np-‘HHt-Ib-IH-Aw gSQM-PWNHOWOOQQMAWNHO the calendar year in which the transfer of 600,000 shares in Setima Sdn Bhd from Julian Ting to Nicole Ting was made. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All licenses held by or in the name of Nicole Ting-Yap for any and all trade secrets which you contend were stored on the Synology DiskStation RAID device located in the garage attached to Defendant’s residence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All non-disclosure and/or confidentiality agreements which were executed by Julian Ting at any time relating to the trade secret information stored on the Synology DiskStation RAID device located in the garage attached to Defendant’s residence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All minutes and/or resolutions of the board of directors for J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd that refer or relate to the loan ofmoney to Julian C. ting at any time from January 1, 2000 to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All tax returns for Setima Sdn Bhd and J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd showing the transfer of cash at any time to Julian C. Ting and whether such transfer was a distribution of income, a loan or a gifi. REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All financial statements for J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd showing the dollar amount of all loans outstanding to Julian C. Ting in each calendar year from January 1, 2000 to the present. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All documents showing the following information for the Ting Family Trust: 1) the names of all of the current beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage held by each in the trust; 2) a description of all of the assets held in the trust; 3) the names and addresses of the current u'ustees; 4) a description of any sale of assets and/or the disposition ofmoney or assets to any beneficiary in the last five (5) years. - 4 - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TlNG-YAP- SET ONE CASE NO.: 1CV38] l 10 AWN \OWQQM 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: May 28, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. A/CKERMAN . // /{o HABE/G’/GKERW A c orneys for efendant PANIDA HINSUPAKUL REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TING-YAP- SET ONE -5- CASE NO.: lCV38] 110 OKOOOQQUI-tht-I» NNNNNNNNr-tr-HHn-nv-tt-wuu gQQMAWMHoomflak-J’IAUJNH PROOF 0F SERVICE The undersigned declares: I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Santa Clara County, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within above-entitled action. My business address is 2391 The Alameda, Suite 100, Santa Clara, CA 95050. On May 28, 2021, I served a copy of the following document(s) described as: REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP- SET ONE on the interested parties in this action by placing true ccpies thereof to the person(s) listed below: Ms. Skye Langs, Esq. COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery St., Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 391-4800 Facsimile: (415) 989-1663 email: ef-sdl@cpdb.com (Attorneyfor Plaintiffiv, Anne Ting, Jack Ting, and Nicole Ting-Yap) (>0 (By U.S. Mail) I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of correSpondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter is more than one day after dated of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I caused to be deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully paid to be placed in the United States Mail at Santa Clara, California. (X) (By E-Mail) I caused a true c0py of the foregoing document to be served on Skye Langs of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, at slangs@coblentzlaw.com. The e-mails were complete and no reports of error were received on May 28, 2021. ( ) (By Facsimile) I caused to be served by facsimile a true and correct copy pursuant to C.C.P. §1013(e), calling for agreement and written confirmation of that agreement on court order, to the number(s) listed above or on an attached sheet. Said transmission was reported complete and without CI'I'OI'. - 5 - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TlNG-YAP- SET ONE CASE NO.: lCV381110 \OOOVO‘AMAUJNH NNNNNu-tn-Ao-np-Av-Av-tn-IHHt-t ( ) (By Federal Express) I caused to be served a true and correct copy enclosed in a sealed package, for California Overnight collection and for overnight delivery. I had said enveIOpe marked for collection and overnight delivery to the addressed and to the office of the addressee(s) as above indicated. In the ordinary course of business and including said overnight enveIOpes, will be deposited with Federal Express at Santa Clara, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in the City of Santa Clara, State of California on May 28, 2021. By: (/Z I /\“ H NIEL.SN - 7 - REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF, NICOLE TING-YAP- SET ONE CASE NO.: lCV381 110 sls@mgackermanlaw.com From: sls@mgackermanlaw.com Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 2:45 PM To: 'slangs@coblentzlaw.com' Cc: 'Mike Ackerman' Subject: Ting v. Chinsupakul Attachments: RPOD to N Ting-Yap 05.28.21.pdf Good afternoon Ms. Langs, Attached please find a Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, Nicole Ting-Yap; a hard copy of which is also being mailed to your office. Best regards, Stephanie L. Snyder Legal Secretary Law Offices of Michael G. Ackerman 2391 The Alameda, Suite 100 Santa Clara, CA 95050 [408) 261-5800 sls@mgackermanlaw. Com The information contained in this e-mail message and its attachment(s) may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. Ifyou think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at the above noted address. EXHIBIT “B” to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94IO4-5500 ~ FAX 4|5.989.l663 4|5.39|.4800 \OMQQUI&LRNH NNNNNNNNNHr-H-HH-p-HD- ooqo‘maunwcxoooqaxmAwny-c SCOTT C. HALL (State Bar No. 232492) SKYE LANGS (State Bar No. 287908) EMLYN MANDEL (State Bar No. 3 1‘0403) COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, California 94104-5500 Telephone: 415.391.4800 Facsimile: 415.989.1663 Email: ef-sch@cpdb.com ef-sdl@cpdb.com ef-erm@coblentzlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANNE TING, JACK TING, and NICOLE TING-YAP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ANNE TING, an individual; JACK TING, Case No. 21CV381 l 10 an individual; and NICOLE TING-YAP, an individual, RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP T0 FIRST REQUEST FOR Plaintiffs, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT v. PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, Action Filed: March 24, 2021 Defendants. Trial Date: None Set PROPOUNDING PARTY: Defendant PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL RBSPONDING PARTY: PlaintiffNICOLE TING-YAP SET NO.: One Pursuant to Sections 203 1 .010, et seq., of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Nicole Ting-Yap (“Responding Party”) submits these responses and objections to the Requests for Production of Documents, Set Number One, propounded by Defendant Panida Chinsupakul (“Propounding Party”). l CaseNo. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSPROPOW T PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL n‘ l COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY 5. BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, SUIT: 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94IO4-5500 FAX 415.989J663 4|5.39l.4800 - \OWQ@UIhOJNh-t NNNNNNNNNr-HHHHHHHHH WQQUIAMNHG©WQQCIIhMNHG PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ‘ Nothing in this response should be construed as an admission by Responding Party with respect to the admissibility or relevance ofany fact or document, or of the truth or accuracy of any characterization or statement of any kind contained in Propounding Party’s Requests for Production. Responding Party has not completed her investigation of the facts relating to this case, her discovery, or her preparation for trial. All responses and objections contained herein are based only upon such information and such documents that are presently available to and specifically known by Responding Pany. It is anticipated that further discovery, independent investigation, legal research, and analysis will supply additional facts and add meaning to known facts, as well as establish entirely new factual conclusions and legal contentions, all ofwhich may lead to substantial additions to, changes in, and variations from the responses set forth herein. The following objections and responses are made without prejudice to Responding Party’s right to produce at trial, or otherwise, evidence regarding any subsequently discovered documents. Responding Party accordingly reserves the right to modify and amend any and all reSponses herein as research is completed and contentions are made. GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Responding Party generally objects to the Requests for Production as follows: A. R63ponding Party obj ects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they seek to elicit information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of this action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; B. Responding Party objects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they are unreasonably overbroad in scope, and thus burdensome and oppressive, in that each such request seeks information pertaining to items and matters that are not relevant to the subject matter of this action, or, if relevant, so remote therefrom as to make its disclosure of little or no practical benefit to Propounding Party, while placing a wholly unwarranted burden and expense on Responding Party in locating, reviewing and producing the requested information; C. Responding Party obj ects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they are burdensome and oppressive, in that ascertaining the information necessary to respond to 2 Case No. 21CV381 l 10 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE .3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94l04-5500 - FAX 4I5.989.I663 4l5.39l.4800 \OWQGUI&OJNH NNNNNNNNNny-s-HH-Hn-n-H ooxnaxmamuu-ncxcooqaxmawuuc them, and to produce documents in accordance therewith, would require the review and compilation of information from multiple locations, and voluminous records and files, thereby involving substantial time ofResponding Party and great expense to Responding Party, whereas the information sought to be obtained by Propounding Party would be of little use or benefit to Propounding Party; D. Responding Party objects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they are vague, uncertain and overbroad, being without limitation as to time or specific subject matter; E. Responding Party objects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they seek information at least some ofwhich is protected by the attomey-client privilege or the attorney work-product doctrine, or both; F. Responding Party objects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they seek to have Plaintiff furnish infonnation and identify documents that are a matter of the public record, and therefore, are equally available to the propounding party as they are to Responding Party; and G. Responding Party objects generally to the Requests for Production to the extent that they seek to have Responding Party furnish information and identify documents that are proprietary to Responding Party and contain confidential information. Without waiver of the foregoing, Responding Party further responds as follows: RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Any and all writings (as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) which relate or refer to the transfer of the shares held by Julian Ting and Nicole Ting in J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd to Setima Sdn Bhd at any time on or before June 12, 2000. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. l: ReSponding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. R65ponding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and burdensome, 3 Case No. 21CV381 l lO RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94Io4-5500 o FAX 4|5.989.l663 4|5.39I.4800 \OmdQUI&MNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHfiHHH®NQM§WNHG©WQ¢M&MNHC causing this request to seek information neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, in that it seeks “any and all writings,” and concerns the transfer of shares to any and all persons or entities to whom Julian Ting and Nicole Ting have transferred their shared during a 21-year time period. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. [Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks documents concerning Juliian Ting which are not in the possession, custody, or control of Responding Party. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present dispute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this dispute solely concerns the theft of private and confidential information belonging to or lawfully held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or information concerning the ownership of entities whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the information was wrongfully obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to afiirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the theft of that same information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party will produce documents sufficient to show that Julian Ting currently owns no shares ofJCT or Setima, and has not since November 30, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Any and all writings (as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) which refer or relate to the transfer of 600,000 shares held by Julian Ting in Setima Sdn Bhd to Nicole Ting at any time on or afier January 1, 2000, to the present including but not limited to, all writings describing the consideration given by Nicole Ting to Julian Ting for the transfer of said shares. / / / /// 4 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP ON: MONTGQMERY STREET, SUIT: 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94404-5500 - FAX 4|5.989.l663 4|S.39l.4800 vaflGUlfitfiNr-d NNNNNNNNNHHHHHI‘F‘HI-IH WQQUI§MNHGWWQQUIAMNHG RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 2: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected fiom disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks “any and all writings,” rendering the request overbroad and burdensome, causing this request to seek information neither relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third patties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. lResponding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks informatipn that is not releéant to the subject matter of the present dispute and/or not reasonablyz‘calculated to lead t0 discovery of admissible evidence, because this dispute solely concerns the thefi ofprivate and confidential information belonging to or lawfully held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or information éonceming the ownership of entities whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the infonnation was wrongfully obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the thefi of that same information. Subject to and witiiout waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party will produce documents sufficient to show that Julian Ting transferred his 600,000 shares in Setima Sdn fihd to Nicole Ting on November 30, 2000. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: The Financial Statements and Reports prepared by Setima Sdn Bhd and J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd for the calendar year in Which the transfer of 600,000 shares in Setima Sdn Bhd from Julian Ting to Nicole Ting was made. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected fiom disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. 5 Case No. 21CV381 1 10 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94Io4-5500 - FAX 4l5.989.|663 4l5.391.4800 \O%\IO\UI&OJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHr-t-t-I WQO\UI&MNHQ\OW\IGUIAQJNHG ReSponding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. ReSponding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present dispute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this diSpute solely concerns the thefi ofprivate and confidential information belbnging to or lawfillly held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or information concerning the finances of the entities whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the information was wrongfully obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the thefi of that same information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party will not produce documents responsive to this request because they are not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All licenses held by or in the name ofNicole Ting-Yap for any and all trade secrets which you contend were stored on the Synology DiskStation RAID device located in the garage attached to Defendant's residence. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: Responding Party obj ects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding party objects to this request on thefigrounds that the term “license” is undefined, and that licenses can be verbal and/or implied, and as a result, the use of this undefined term renders the request vague and ambiguous. g Responding Party objects t0 this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential finagcial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 6 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TlNG-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ON: MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104-5500 FAX 4|5.989.l663 4|5.39l.4800 - \OWQQUIADJNH I-v-t-II-IH-nv-I-I-H QWQQUI303NHG 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks the production ofdocuments that are confidential, proprietary and/or commercially sensitive. Responding Party objects t0 this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present dispute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of adnfiésible evidence. Responding Party has no obligation to affirmatively disclose all the details of the trade secret information that was stolen in order to obtain a remedy for the thefl of that same information. Subject to and Without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to the entry of a suitable protective order, Responding Party will produce documents sufficient to show that Nicole Ting-Yap was the owner, lawful possessor, and/or licensee of trade secret information that she stored on Julian Ting’s server, to the extent such documents exist and can be located after a reasonably diligent search. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: All non-disclosure and/or confidentiality agreements which were executed by Julian Ting at any time relating to the trade secret information stored on the Synology DiskStation RAID device located in the garage attached to Defendant's residence. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks the production of documents that are coqfidential, pr0prietary and/or commercially sensitive. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order! Responding party objects to this request on the grounds that the term‘‘non-disclosure and/or confidentiality agreements” is undefined, and that such agreements can be verbal and/or implied, and as a result, the use of this undefined term renders the request vague and ambiguous. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter ofthe present dispute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party has no obligation to affirmatively disclose all the details of the trade 7 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ON: MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94I04-5500 FAx 4|5.989.I663 4l5.39l.4800 - fiwflQUIAO-DNH NNNNNNNNNHI-II-Irflr-y-Int-y-fl ooqcsm-th-Gwooqmmtht-te secret information that was stolen in order to obtain a remedy for the thefi of that same information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and subject to the entry of a suitable protective order, Responding Party will produce the confidentiality agreement between Nicole Ting-Yap and Julian Ting. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: All minutes and/or resolutions of the board of directors for J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd that refer or relate to the loan of money to Julian C. Ting at any time from January 1, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE T0 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 6: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected fiom disclosure by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, in that it seeks “all” documents that “refer or relate” to possible loans spanning a 21- year period. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Patty objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entIy of a protective order. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present dispute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this dispute solely concerns the thefi ofprivate and confidential information belonging to or lawfully held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or information concerning the finances of the entities whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the information was wrongfillly obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the thefi of that same information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party will not produce documents responsive to this request because they are not relevant to the 8 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94Io4-5500 - FAX 4l5.989.l663 4|5.39|.4800 \GQQQUI&MNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH “flamAMN#Q\O®\IO\UIAMNHG subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0. 7: All tax returns for Setima Sdn Bhd and J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd showing the transfer of cash at any time to Julian C. Ting and whether such transfer was a distribution of income, a loan or a gift. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected fiom disclosure by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, in that it seeks “all” tax retums, without any time limitation. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present disPute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this dispute solely concerns the theft of private and confidential information belonging to or lawfully held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or information concerning the finances of the entities whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the information was wrongfully obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the theft of that same information. Subject t0 and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party will not produce documents responsive to this request because they are not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. / / / /// 9 Case No. 21CV381 l 10 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94IO4-5500 - FAx 4|5.989.I663 4|5.39|.4800 \OOOQGUIAMNH NNNNNNNNNhHHHHHHflflr-n “flatnhMNHGwWQONUIAuNI-‘G REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: All financial statements for J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd showing the dollar amount of all loans outstanding to Julian C. Ting in each calendar year from January 1, 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 8: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected fiom disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is overbroad and unduly burdensome, in that it seeks “all financial statements” showing possible loans spanning a 21-year period. ReSponding Party objects to this request on the grounds that “financial statements” is vague and ambiguous, rending this request overbroad and unduly burdensome. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present diSpute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this diSpute solely concerns the theft of private and confidential information belonging to or lawfully held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or infonnation concerning the finances of the entities Whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the information was wrongfully obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the theft of that same information. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Responding Party will not produce documents r63ponsive to this request because they are not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: All documents showing the following information for the Ting Family Trust: 1) the names of all of the current beneficiaries of the trust and the percentage held by each in the trust; 2) a 10 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET, Sun: 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94Io4-5500 o FAX 4I5.989.l663 4| 5.39l.4800 \OMQGUI&DJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHflH-uu-nn OOQGUIAOJNfl€QWQOKMANNH° description of all of the assets held in the trust; 3) the names and addresses of the current trustees; 4) a description of any sale of assets and/or the disposition ofmoney or assets to any beneficiary in the last five (5) years. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: Responding Party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from disclosure by the attomey-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or both. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks private and confidential financial information of Plaintiffs and third parties, and violates their constitutional right to privacy. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks private and confidential prior to the entry of a protective order. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that Defendant learned of the Ting Family Trust through her illegal theft of attomey-client privileged information belonging to Anne Ting; Defendant’s continued use of this information, including by seeking additional information about the Ting Family Trust through this discovery request and/or the deposition ofNicole Ting-Yap, is a continuation of the wrongs alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint, and a violation of the Temporary Restraining Order entered in the above- captioned action. Re5ponding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of the present dispute and/or not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this dispute solely concerns the thefi of private and confidential information belonging to or lawfully held by Nicole Ting, Anne Ting, and Jack Ting. Evidence or information concerning the finances of the entities whose information Nicole Ting held, and whose information was stolen from her, has no bearing on whether the information was wrongfully obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the thefi of that same information. / / / / / / / / / / / / /// 11 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ON: MONTGOMERY STREET. SUIT: 3000. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94Io4-5500 - FAX 4|5.989.I663 4l5.39l.4800 \OwflQUI&Q-DNH NNNNNNNNNI-b-I-Ir-r-Ht-I-i-I-I mqamthHGwmqamtht-sc Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, ReSponding Party Will not produce documents responsive to this request because they are not relevant to the subject matter of this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence. DATED: June 29, 2021 COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP By: SLAPXWMB SKYE s %Attorne s for Plainti s ANNE TING, JACK TING, and NICOLE TING-YAP 12 Case No. 21CV381110 RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP T0 FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL COBLENTz PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104-5500 FAx 4l5.989.l663 4l5.39l.4800 o WQNQUI§UNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHh-I-I OOxleUIAmNr-tcwooqamAth-tc PROOF OF SERVICE Anne Ting, Jack Ting, and Nicole Ting-Yap vs. Panida Chinsupakul Santa Clara Counm Superior Court Case No. 21CV381 1 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time of service, I was over eighteen years of age and not a party to this action. Iam employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. My business address is One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000, San Francisco, California 94104-5500. On June 29, 2021, I served a true copy of the foregoing document described as RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP T0 FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL on the interested parties in this action as follows: Attorney for Defendant Panida Chinsupakul: Michael G. Ackerman, Esq. The Law Offices of Michael G. Ackerman 2391 The Alameda, Suite 100 Santa Clara, California 95050 Telephone: 408.261.5800 Facsimile: 408.261.5900 E-Mail: mga@mgackermanlaw.com sls@mgackermanlaw.com BY MAIL: I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the person at the address listed above and placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document to be sent from e-mail address rbrown@coblentzlaw.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time afier the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessfill. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 29, 2021, at San Francisco, California. @Wfi/MWL/ Robert Brown 18786.001 4819428264522 13 CaseNo.21CV38lllO RESPONSE OF PLAINTIFF NICOLE TING-YAP TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS PROPOUNDED BY DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL EXHIBIT “C” to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) Michael Ackerman fl. _ From: Langs, Skye Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 12:46 PM To: Michael Ackerman Cc: Hall, Scott; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management Michael, Tomorrow after 1 works for us. Let me know what time you’d prefer, and we will send around an invite. BesL Skye Langs Coblentz Patch Duffy 8. Bass LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-772-5785 | Office 415-391-4800 slangs@coblentz|aw.com www.coblentzlaw.com This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. From: Michael Ackerman Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 1:10 PM To: Langs, Skye Cc: Hall, Scott ; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management I have until August 15, 2021 to move to compel further responses to our requests to produce. Although we have briefly met and conferred regarding your objections and have exchanged the below emails, I want to make one more attempt to resolve our dispute before filing a motion to compel. Do you have time to speak on Thursday or Friday this week? If so please give me your available times. From: Michael Ackerman [mailtozmqa@mqackermanlaw.com1 Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 12:39 PM To: 'Langs, Skye' Cc: 'Hall, Scott'; 'Mandel, Emlyn' Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: ng v. Chinsupakul - case management Pursuant to Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal. 4‘“ 704, at 722-723, Panida had and has a right to financial r information in a business that was owned by her husband not only to determine their financial status but also to determine if there is or was a basis to claim a community property interest in the business. lfJulian devoted his time and efforts to developing JCT/Setima’s business and it grew in value, a claim could be made that if he was not adequate|y compensated that a portion of the increase in value is community property. She clearly'had a community property interest in their financial information. To the extent that Julian was concealing that information on the RAID 5 device, she had a right to access that information. EXHIBIT .I E From: Langs, Skye [mailto:slangs@coblentzlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 12:12 PM To: Michael Ackerman Cc: Hall, Scott; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management Michael, I’m free tomorrow after 11 a.m., and Thursday between 10 and 1. Is there a time in either of those windows that works for you? With respect to the scope of Nicole’s deposition, | don’t see how Julian’s ownership interest in Setima or JCT is relevant to the claims in this case. Even ifJulian did own shares in those companies, that would not have given the Panida the right to take information about those companies off of Nicole’s password-protected partition of the server. Nor would it excuse the theft of all the other information Panida took from Nicole in addition to the information about Setima and JCT. Do you have any case law or legal support to the contrary? Best, Skye Langs Coblentz Patch Duffy & Boss LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-772-5785 | Office 415-391-4800 slanngcoblentzlaw.com www.coblentzlaw.com This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. From: Michael Ackerman Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:38 AM To: Langs, Skye Cc: Hall, Scott ; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management I do not agree that the information relating to ownership of the company business or whether Nicole paid anything to acquire Julian’s shares is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It goes to the very basis to your claim that Julian did not and does not have a true ownership interest in these companies. lfl can prove that the transfer of title was a fraud and not real, then I can prove that Julian is the true beneficial owner of Setima and JCT. That will affect the claims being made against my client directly. I will be making a motion to compel and will not agree to limit my questioning. l am leaving on the evening ofJuly 1 and will not be returning until July 12. So if you want to talk before July 12 you need to set up a time by Thursday at 1:00 p.m. From: Langs, Skye [mailto:slangs@coblentzlaw.com| Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:30 AM To: 'Mike Ackerman' Cc: Hall, Scott; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management Michael, A case management conference has been scheduled in our case for 8/3. Our deadline to meet and confer in advance of the initial case management conference is this Friday, July 2. Do you have time on or before Friday to have a call to discuss case management issues? Additionally, I’d like to meet and confer regarding Nicole’s deposition, to see if we can reach an agreement about the permissible scope of questioning. Specifically, we do not believe it is appropriate to ask Nicole about (1) the finances, financial records, tax payments, assets, loans, cash distributions, or share transfers made by the entities for which Nicole was a shareholder, director, or custodian of records, including J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd, Setima Sdn Bhd, and/or the Ting Family Trust, (2) loans or gifts purportedly made to Julian Ting, or (3) the identity of shareholders, trustees, or directors of J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd, Setima Sdn Bhd, and/or the Ting Family Trust. None of this will help defend against Nicole’s allegations that she had lawful possession of the information that was taken from her, that the information was private or confidential, that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, or that the information was taken without her consent. If we cannot reach an agreement on limiting the scope of questioning in Nicole’s deposition, to exclude lines of questioning that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case, not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, and that intrude upon the privacy of the Ting family, we will need to file a motion for a protective order. Finally, earlier today you should have received our written responses to discovery and our document production. We have two confidential agreements that we did not produce, and cannot produce until we have a stipulated protective order in place to protect against the disclosure of confidential information produced during discovery. lwill put together a draft stipulated protective order regarding the treatment of confidential information in this proceeding, and will send it to you once it is ready. Best, Skye Langs Cobleniz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-772-5785 | Office 415391-4800 slangs@coblentzlaw.com www.coblentzlaw.com This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. EXHIBIT “D” to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) Michael Ackerman From: Langs, Skye Sent: Friday, July 23, 2021 3:42 PM To: Michael Ackerman Cc: Hall, Scott; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management Michael, Thank you for your patience ~| apologize for the delay in getting back to you on this. We cannot agree to your proposed revision. There is no basis for allowing confidential discovery obtained in this case to be used in a separate proceeding, to which Plaintiffs are not a party, and which involves different claims and factual issues. To the extent Panida believes that Nicole, Anne, or Jack have documents relevant to the divorce proceeding, and the family lawjudge agrees, she can obtain those documents in that proceeding. If you have a proposal for how we can reso|ve the dispute about the terms of the stipulated protective order, I’d be interested to hear it. Otherwise, you should go ahead and move to compel on requests #4 and #5, since it will likely be a while before we are able to come to an agreement (or get the court’s attention) on the terms of the stipulated protective order. Best, Skye Langs | Partner Cobleniz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP 415-772-5785 | Office 415-391-4800 This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. From: Michael Ackerman Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 1:04 PM To: Mandel, Emlyn Cc: Hall, Scott ; Langs, Skye Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management l have made one change to the proposed order. Because Ms. Chinsupakul has a right to review all confidential documents, I be|ieve she has the right to discuss them with her attorneys in the family law case. I will agree that they will be bound by the protective order as well, They will sign the attachment agreeing to be bound by the order when such documents are shown or discussed with them. From: Mandel, Emlyn [mailto:EMandel@coblentzlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 10:59 AM To: ‘Mike Ackerman' Cc: Hall, Scott; Langs, Skye Subject: RE: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management Michael, EXHIBIT n! 1 ) Following up on Skye’s email below, attached for your consideration is a draft stipulated protective order regarding the treatment of confidential information in this proceeding. Thanks, Emmy From: Langs, Skye Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:30 AM To: ‘Mike Ackerman' Cc: Hall, Scott ; Mandel, Emlyn Subject: Ting v. Chinsupakul - case management Michael, A case management conference has been scheduled in our case for 8/3. Our deadline to meet and confer in advance of the initial case management conference is this Friday, July 2. Do you have time on or before Friday to have a call to discuss case management issues? Additionally, I’d like to meet and confer regarding Nicole’s deposition, to see if we can reach an agreement about the permissible scope of questioning. Specifically, we do not believe it is appropriate to ask Nicole about (1) the finances, financial records, tax payments, assets, loans, cash distributions, or share transfers made by the entities for which Nicole was a shareholder, director, or custodian of records, including J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd, Setima Sdn Bhd, and/or the Ting Family Trust, (2) loans or gifts purportedly made to Julian Ting, or (3) the identity of shareholders, trustees, or directors of J.C.T. Holdings Sdn Bhd, Setima Sdn Bhd, and/or the Ting Family Trust. None of this will help defend against Nicole’s allegations that she had lawful possession of the information that was taken from her, that the information was private or confidential, that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy, or that the information was taken without her consent. If we cannot reach an agreement on limiting the scope of questioning in Nicole’s deposition, to exclude lines of questioning that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case, not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, ancl that intrude upon the privacy of the Ting family, we will need to file a motion for a protective order. Finally, earlier today you should have received our written responses to discovery and our document production. We have two confidential agreements that we did not produce, and cannot produce until we have a stipulated protective order in place to protect against the disclosure of confidential information produced during discovery. |wil| put together a draft stipulated protective order regarding the treatment of confidential information in this proceeding, and will send it to you once it is ready. Best, Skye Langs Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94104 415-772-5785 | Office 415-391-4800 slangs@coblentzlaw.com www.coblentzlaw.com This transmittal is intended solely for use by its addressee, and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you receive this transmittal in error, please email a reply to the sender and delete the transmittal and any attachments. EXHIBIT “E”. to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) FL-150 PARTY wnHour ATTORNEY 0R Arroanev STATE BAR NUMBER: FOR counr use ONLY NAME: Nancy Encarnacion Mass, Esq. 225464 HRMNAME: BERRA STROSS WALLACKER & MASS SIREETADDRESS: 411 Borel Ave, Suite 550 cmr: San Mateo STATECA zspcooE:94402 TELEPH0N5N0.: (650) 212-7861 FAXN0.: (650) 349-9907 emcmooness: nmass@bswmlaw . com ATTORNEYFORmame): Julian C. Ting SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREETADDRESS: 201 N. First Street MAILINGADDRESS; 191 N. First Street cn'vANozwcooE: San Jose, CA 95113 amcnume: Family Justice Center Courthouse (FJCC) PETITIONER: Panida Chinsupakul RESPONDENT: Julian C. Ting OTHER PARTY/PARENT/CLAIMANT: CASE NUMBER:INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION 2051003262 1. Employment (Give information on your currentjob or, ifyou're unemployed, your most recentjob.) Attach copies a. Employer: of your pay b. Employer's address: stubs for last c. Employer‘s phone number: two months d. Occupation: (black out e. Datejob started: Social f. If unemployed. date job ended: Security g. Iwork about hours per week. numbers). h. l get paid $ gross (before taxes) D per month D per week D per hour. (If you have more than one job, attach an 8 1I2-by-11-inch sheet of paper and list the same information as above for your other jobs. Write "Question 1 - Other Jobs" at the top.) 2. Age and education a. My age is (specify): 4 9 b. l have completed high school or the equivalent:m Yes D No If no, highest grade completed (specify): c. Number ofyears of college completed (specify): 4 m Degree(s)obtained (specify): BC in Marketing d. Number ofyears of graduate schoolcompleted (specify): 2 m Degree(s)obtained (specify): MBA e lhave: D professional/occupationallicense(s) (specify):D vocational training (specify): 3. Tax information a. m I last filed taxes for tax year (specify year): 2 0 1 9 b. My tax filing status is D single D head of household D married, filing separatelyE married, filing jointly with (specify name): Pan ida Ch i nsupa kul c. lfile state tax returns in m California D other (specify state): d. l claim the following number of exemptions (including myself) on my taxes (specify): 4 4. Other party's income. l estimate the gross monthly income (before taxes) of the other party in this case at (specify): $ TBD This estimate is based on (explain): (If you need more space to answer any questions on this form, attach an 8 1/2-by-11-inch sheet of paper and write the question number before your answer.) Number of pages attached: l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information contained on all pages of this form and any attachments is true and correct. Date: Feb 17, 2021 Julian Ting ’ lulalfl'lnllthII"; H Il’iIGMYvIU (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) 1.1 1..qu Tm Page1of4 Form Ado ‘eu torMandato Use W RA Family Code, 2030-2032. 2100-2113.Judicial Cguncil o! Californir; c Essential INCO ’ .tl‘ DmLA TION 3552. 36 .4050-4076. 4300-4339FL-150 (Rev. January 1. 2019] CEB ‘ ‘\ l www.cauns‘cagovmbmm E Fo-rm§ TING FL-1 50 PETITIONER: Panida Chinsupa kul cAse numsea: RESPONDENT: Julian C. Ting 20FL003262 0THER PARTY/PARENT/CLAIMANT: Attach copies of your pay stubs for the last two months and proof of any other income. Take a copy of your latest federal tax return to the court hearing. (Black out your Social Security number on the pay stub and tax return.) 5. 10. 11. Income (For average monthly, add up all the income you received in each category in the last 12 months Average and divide the total by 12.) Last month monthly . Salary or wages (gross, before taxes) . Overtime (gross. before taxes) . Commissions or bonuses . Public assistance (forexample: TANF, SSI, GA/GR) D currentlyreceiving . Spousal supportD from this marriage D from a different marriage D federallytaxable* Partner support D from this domestic partnership D from a different domestic partnership . Pensionlretirement fund payments . Social Security retirement (not SSI) Disability: D Social Security (notSSl) D State disabilily(SDl) a Private insurance Unemployment compensation . Workers'compensation Other (mi|itary ailowances. royalty payments) (specify): >x‘r'r'3'corhmaoc'm mmwmmmmfimmmm Investment income (Attach a schedule showing gross receipts less cash expenses for each piece ofproperty.) a, Dividends/interest *The character of dividend/interest income 3*135 *7069 b_ Rentalpropenyincome has yet to be determined and all brokerage $ . assets are currently frozen c. Trust Income 3 d. Other (specify): $ Income from self-employment, after business expenses for all businesses S * *-7 1 8 lamthe D ownerlsole proprietor m business partner D other (specifypl own 50% of PIH. PIH hrals no income Numberofyearsinthis business (specify): Approximately 6 years Egg??Siglgeioinéggqigoggzg.aggpital Name of business (specify): PIH, LLC ("PIH") contributions gre required f9r taxes, Type ofbusiness (specifil): Real estate development exPenses' "e" mvesments G mvenmry' Attach a profit and loss statement for the last two years or a Schedule C from your last federal tax return. Black out your Social Security number. If you have more than one business, provide the information above for each of your businesses. D Additional income. I received one-time money (lottery winnings. inheritance. etc.) in the last 12 months (specify source and amount): D Change in income. My financial situation has changed significantly over the last 12 months because (specify): Deductions Last month a. Required union dues $ b. Required retirement payments (not Social Security, FICA. 401(k). or IRA) $ c. Medical, hospital, dental, and other health insurance premiums (total monthly amount) $Private health $ 7 ,. 3 34 d. Child support that l pay for children from other relationships Insurance) $ e. Spousal support thatl pay by court order from a different marriage D federally tax deductible" $ f. Partner support that I pay by court order from a different domestic partnership 3 g. Necessary job-related expenses not reimbursed by my employer(attach explanation labeled "Question 109') .....$__ Assets Total a. Cash and checking accounts, savings. credit union, money market, and other deposit accounts S '3 , 4 12 b. Stocks, bonds. and other assets I could easily sell “*All br°kerage a°°°unt5 PresentlY fr°zen- $* * *0 c. All other property. m real and m personal (esselteméi'esrai?graffiéievnalggggfivtbtssthlenfefislgfil 3W9) ..............m " Check the box if the spousal support order orjudgment was executed by the parties and the court before January 1. 2019, or if a court-ordered change maintains the spousal support payments as taxable income to the recipient and tax deductible to the payor. msomev. Januam. 20191 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION - Pagezom Sailin- Essential g rms T ING FL-1 50 PETITIONER: Panida Chinsupakul CASE NUMBER: RESPONDENT: Julian C. Ting 20FL003262 OTHER PARTY/PARENTICLAIMANT: 12. The following people live with me: How the person is That person's gross Pays some of the Name Age related to me (ex: son) monthly income household expenses? a. D Yes D No b. D Yes D No c. D Yes D No d. D Yes D No e. D Yes Q No 13. Average monthly expenses * m Estimated expensesae m Actual expenses D Proposed needs a. Home: . (1)m Rentor m mortgage $ ** 1 0, 819 ,h' Laundry and Clean'ng $ 20 Ifmortgage: f» Clothe? $ 1 , 61 a (a) average principal: $-_J_,_9AJ_ J' Educat'on S 8 " 300 (b) avera e interest, s 2 918 k. Entertainment, gifts. and vacation $ 1 , 592 (2) Real propegny taxes ' $ q 343 I. Auto expenses andtransportation (3) Homeowner's or renters insurance ' (insurance' gas’ repairs' bus' etc”) $ 1 " 7 30 (if not included above) S 7 6i m. Insurance (life, accident. etc.; do not include (4) Maintenance and repair $ 1 . 7 9 5 amo.’ home’ 9r health Insurance) $ . . * * * ' n. Savmgs and Investments $ b. Health-care costs not paid by Insurance ...$___2_,A_4A_ . . . $ 1 7 .3 0 c. Child care 3 o. Chantable contnbutIIons I . ,. d. Groceries and household supplies $ ‘l , 822 p' Monthly paymepts “Sted '.n Item 14 e Eating out $ 1 .7 ,5 0 (Itemlze below In 14 and Insert total here)a_nggO '. A ' ' 9n $ . f. Utilities (gas. electric. water. trash) $ 7'77 q' Other (SpeC'fY)' see’At'taChm f A ' g. Telephone. cell phone, and e-mail $ “$8 '3 r. TOTAL EXPENSES (a-q) (do not add in * *Includes estimated monthly rental cost the amounts in a(1)(a) and (b)) $_3_9_,_3.8_8. of $5, 900 plus $4, 919 mortgage . s. Amount of expenses paid by others $______ *Non-recurring payments were estimated using an average “*Includes estimated $1200 in of the six month period between 7/1-11/30, 2020 therapy expenses for both parties14. Installment and debts not listed above Paid to For Amount Balance 15. Attorney fees (This is required if eitherpady is requesting attomey fees): a. To date. I have paid my attorney this amount for fees and costs (speciM: $ 5 l , 2 8 5 b. The source of this money was (special): Savings / Investment income c. l still owe the following fees and costs to my attorney (special total owed): $ O d. My attorney's hourly rate is (specifil): 6 0 0 / 4 2 5 | confirm this fee arrangement. Date: 2.16.21 Michael J. Wess, Esq. Date of last (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) FL-1501R9V- January 1. 2019] INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION P899 3 0'4 CEB- Essential mama BFM‘ T ING FL-1 50 PETITIONER: Panida Chinsupakul ms: NUMBER: RESPONDENT: Julian C. Ting 20FL003262 OTHER PARTY/PARENTICLAIMANT: CHILD SUPPORT INFORMATION (NOTE: Fill out this page only if your case involves child support.) 16. Number of children a. I have (specify number): 2 children under the age of 18 with the other parent in this case. b. The children spend * percent of their time with me and * percent of their time with the other parent. (Ifyou’re not sure about percentage or it has not been agreed on, please describe yourparenting schedule here.) TBD. A Temporary Restraining Order was filed against me on October 7, 2020 that is presently scheduled for a review hearing on Febuary 18, 2021. I have supervised video visitation Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 17. Children's health-care expenses a.D l do D ldo not have health insurance available to me for the children through myjob. b. Name of insurance company: c. Address of insurance company: d. The monthly cost for the children's health insurance is or would be (specify): $ (Do not include the amount your employerpays.) *Estimated based on therapy once a week 18. Additional expenses for the children in this case Amount per monthfor each chi1d at a. Child care so I can work or getjob training b. Children's health care not covered by insurance c. Travel expenses for visitation d. Children's educational or other special needs (specifi/ below): $150 per hour *1900 . _ l . **1-700 *f§pperv;sed Vlsltatlon cost, whlch does not iuplude an additional $20 per day on public mama holidays 19. Special hardships. I ask the court to consider the following special financial circumstances (attach documentation ofany Item listed here, Including court orders): Amount per month For how many months? a. Extraordinary health expenses not included in 18b $ b. Major losses not covered by insurance (examples: fire, thefi, other insured loss) S c. (1) Expenses for my minor children who are from other relationships and are living with me 5 (2) Names and ages of those children (speciM: (3) Child support l receive for those children $ The expenses listed in a. b and c create an extreme financial hardship because (explain): 20. Other information I want the court to know concerning support in my case (Specily): FL-150 [Rev- January 1. 2019) INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION Page 4 of 4 EssentialCEB Em TINGcebmm Attachment A to Income and Expense Declaration v L: a:arzm! l3-qWInc1dentals’ 7‘ :j’r‘" ‘1 Ti Non-vacation Travel $692.77 Subscriptions $45.35 Personal Care $481 .33 Postage & Shipping $49.17 S orts Equipment $136.57 Bank Service Charges $60.42 Rental Home - Phone/Internet $175.00 Rental Home - Water $275.00 Rental Home - Electricty/Gas $1 85.00 Rental Home - Trash $120.00 Miscellaneous $329.71 Total $2,550.32 Attachment B to Income and Expense Declaration t r llbFrozenAccountspe'r‘?71‘0/‘77202’0fiipynflifid?ii};iii-ia’:,'é,:=f;’fii‘ri-:? E*Trade x9097 $1,229.21 E*Trade x6919 $16,173.54 E*Trade x0909 $1 0,923.00 E*Trade Securities x] 630 $154,480.63 E*Trade Securities x2073 $1 0.84 Vanguard x8644 $477,836.85 Vanguard x8754 $695,] 19.03 E*Trade Rollover IRA x0890 $1 12,698.99 E*Trade Roth IRA x0987 $20,038.33 Vanguard Rolloever IRA x6017 $207,746.66 Total ' $1,696,257.08 Income Statement 01/1 8/21 Clarum 73 Amador, LLC Income Statement For 12 Months Ending December 2020 Total Direct & EquiplShop Expense: $0.00 Gross Profit: 0.00 Overhead Expense Accounting Fees 104.00 Taxes and Licenses 20.00 Total Overhead Expense: 124.00 Total Indirect Expense: 124.00 Income from Operations: (124.00) Net Income Before Tax: (124.00) After Tax Expense State Income Tax Expense 800.00 Total After Tax Expense: 800.00 Net Income: $(924.00) Report 2-3-0-21 01/18/21 Anita Page 1 of 1 10:37 AM Income Statement 01/27/21 PI H, LLC Income Statement For 12 Months Ending December 2020 Total Direct & EquiplShop Expense: $0.00 Gross Profit: 0.00 Overhead Expense Accounting Fees 781.50 Interest Expense 107.00 Warranty Work 1,817.03 Total Overhead Expense: 2,705.53 Total Indirect Expense: 2,705.53 Income from Operations: (2,705.53) Net Income Before Tax: (2,705.53) After Tax Expense State Income Tax Expense 12,590.00 Tax Penalties 1,945.35 Total After Tax Expense: 14,535.35 Net Income: $(17,240.88) Report 2-3-0-21 01/27/21 Anita Page 1 of1 11:10AM \OOOQQUIAUJNH SJOQONUI-RWN_O\OW\JO\M#WN#O PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed by the law firm ofBerra Stross Wallacker & Mass in the County of San Mateo, California. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within action. My business address is 411 Borel, Suite 550, San Mateo, California 94402. On this date, I served the within: INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION on counsel in this action, by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed enveIOpe addressed as follows: Jaymi Salisbury iaymnghooverkrepelka.com Karlina Paredes karlina@hooverkrepelka.com James Hoover James@hooverkrepelka.com Hoover Krepelka 1520 The Alameda Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95126 D (By Hand) I caused each document to be delivered by hand to the offices listed above. (By E-mail) I caused each document to be sent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses listed above. I declare under penalty ofperjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 17, 2021 at San Mateo, California. . W Kimberly Fefer PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT “F” to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) 20FL003262 Santa Clara - Family FL-320 PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY OR ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO.: FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: JAMES J. HOOVER 217952 Electronically filed FIRM NAME; Hoover Krepelka LLP I by Superior court of CA, STREETADDRESS: 1520 The Alameda SUlte 200 County of Santa Clara,cm; San Jose STATE: CA ZIP CODE: 95126 I MTELEPHONENO; 408-947-7600 mm; 408-947-7603 °n 4/12/2021 4'43 P , E.MAILAoonsss; staff@hooverkrepelka.com ReV'ewed By: A- Georg'eva mommomm PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL Case #20FL003262 SUPERIOR counT 0F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 0F Santa Clara Env. #6224362 STREETADDnEss:201 N. First St. MAILING ADDRESS: 1 91 N. First St. cm! AND ZIP cons: San Jose CA 951 1 3 BRANCH NAME; Family Justice Center PETITIONER: PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL RESPONDENT: JULIAN TING OTHER PARENT/PARTY: CASE NUMBER:RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO REQUEST FOR ORDER 20FL003262HEARING DATE: TIME: DEPARTMENT 0R Room: April 21, 2021 QZOOAM 74 Read Information Sheet: Responsive Declaration to Request for Order(form FL-320-INFO) for more information about this form. 1. m RESTRAINING ORDER INFORMATION a. D No domestic violence restraining/protective orders are now in effect between the parties in this case. b. m | agree that one or more domestic violence restraining/ protective orders are now in effect between the parties in this case. 2. D CHILD CUSTODYD VISITATION (PARENTING TIME) a. a l consent to the order requested for child custody (legal and physical custody) b. D I consent to the order requested for visitation (parenting time). c. D Ido notconsenttothe orderrequestedfor D child custody D visitation (parentingtime)D but I consent to the following order: 3. m CHILD SUPPORT a. l have completed and filed a current Income and Expense DeclarationW or, if eligible, a current Financial Statement (Simplified) (form FL-1 55) to support my responsive declaration. b. D l consent to the order requested. c. D l consent to guideline support. d. m I do not consent to the order requested m but l consent to the following order: Existing orders to remain in effect, or in the alternative, per Petitioner's prior request, Petitioner's proposed DissoMaster attached to her Statement of Support Calculations, filed December 1, 2020 be adopted as the order of the court. 4. m SPOUSAL OR DOMESTIC PARTNER SUPPORT a. l have completed and filed a current Income and Expense Declaration (form FL-1 50) to support my responsive declaration. b. D l consent to the order requested. c. m I do not consent to the order requested a but | consent to the following order: Existing orders to remain in effect, or in the alternative, per Petitioner's prior request, Petitioner‘s proposed DissoMaster attached to her Statement of Support Calculations, filed December 1 , 2020 be adopted as the order of the court. Form Adopled lor Mandatory Use RESPONSIVE DE A11 \L R ST F0R ORDER Page 1 o! 2Judicial Council ol Calilomia _ Code ol Civil Procedure. § 1005FL-320 [Rev‘ July t. 2016] CEB' Essential cm. Rulemaomaee um... Em' “ " Chinsupakul, Panida FL-320 PETITIONER: PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL CASE NUMBER: RESPONDENT: JULIAN TING 20FL003262 OTHER PARENT/PARTY: 5. D PROPERTY CONTROL a. D lconsentto the order requested. b. D l do not consent to the order requested D but l consent to the following order: 6. D ATrORNEY's FEES AND COSTS a. l have completed and filed a current Income and Expense Declaration (form FL-150) to support my responsive declaration. b. I have completed and filed with this form a Supporting Declaration forAttomey's Fees and Costs Attachment (Em FL-1 58) or a declaration that addresses the factors covered in that form. c. a l consent to the order requested. d. D l do not consent to the order requested D but I consent to the following order: 7. D DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER a. D l consent to the order requested. b. D l do not consent to the order requested D but I consent to the following order: 8. E OTHER ORDERS REQUESTED ‘ a. D lconsenttothe order requested. b. m | do not consent to the order requested m but | consent to the following order: Deny Respondent's request to reconsider the orders made on December 3, 2020 on both procedural and substantive grounds. 9. D TIME FOR SERVICE/TIME UNTIL HEARING a. D l consent to the order requested. b. D l do not consent to the order requested D but | consent to the following order: 10.E FACTS T0 SUPPORT my responsive declaration are listed below. The facts that l write and attach to this form cannot be longer than 10 pages. unless the court gives me permission. D Attachment 10. See attached Declaration of Panida Chinsupakul, Petitioner's Update to the Court, and Petitioner's Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed concurrently. l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the information provided in this form and all attachments is true and correct. Date: April 12, 2021 PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL b awe on Palm NAME) (SIGNATURE 0F DECLARANn FL-szotaev.JuIy 1.2016) RESPONSIVE DECLARATION TO REQUEST FOR ORDER Pagezotz ‘ CEB' Essential oemm Em Chinsupakul, Panida 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 l. 3. 4. Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 Attachment to Form FL-320: Declaration of Petitioner, Panida Chinsugakul I, PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, am the Petitioner in the matter herein and if called to testify would competently do so as follows from my personal knowledge, or upon information available to me and my belief in the veracity thereof. Respondent JULIAN C. TING (hereinafier “Julian”) and I married on March 21, 200] and separated in 2020. Our marriage lasted nineteen plus years. We have two (2) minor children together: JUSTIN JIA-SHING TING, (d.o.b.: August 12, 2004, age 16) and IULIANNE JIA-LE TING (d.o.b.: March 21, 2007, age 14). The children and I are currently protected parties under a temporary Domestic Violence Restraining Order. I reSpectfully request the Court: a. DENY Julian’s request for the Court to reconsider its prior orders made December 3, 2020 on both procedural and substantive grounds; b. DENY Julian’s request to modify child support; and c. DENY Julian’s request to modify spousal support. d. GRANT my request for sanctions against Julian in the amount of the actual attorney’s fees and costs incurred to respond to Julian’s request pursuant to Family Code section 271. The estimated amount is $7,500 with the actual amount to be provided at the time of hearing. DECEMBER 3, 2020 ORDERS I submitted a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order on October 6, 2020. It was accepted and granted on a temporary basis on October 8, 2020. In my filed request, I sought various financial orders including: a. Julian to continue paying the expenses for the home & children’s medical/educational activities b. Temporary child support c. Temporary spousal support d. $150,000 in attorney fees l 10 Il 12 13 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 5. The Court ordered Julian to pay all carrying costs for the marital home, credit card bills, tuition, and costs of the children’s schooling, insurance, medical bills for all protected parties, and therapy costs of all protected parties pending the hearing. Julian was ordered to maintain my access to bank accounts and credit cards. Other accounts were ordered frozen. 6. Julian is not in compliance with these orders. Julian immediately ceased making any mortgage payments on the marital residence following the issuance of the Temporary Domestic Violence Restraining Order in October 2020. fl Exhibit 1. Similarly, Julian has stopped paying off the entirety of the credit card balances at the end of each month, which he has always done for the duration ofour lengthy marriage and was court ordered to do. In fact, Julian has been making his monthly support obligations by charging many of the expenses to the AMEX card and then carrying a balance. fig Exhibit 1. 7. At the hearing on December 3, 2020, based on numbers from our last filed tax return, I sought base child support in the amount of $12,383 per month and base Spousal support in the amount of $1 8,178 per month, totaling $30,561. 8. The Court afier hearing argument from counsel and reviewing all documents, ordered that Julian continue paying the expenses for the home (which he has failed to do as outlined above) and to pay $15,000 per month for unallocated spousal and child support (which he has failed to do for the last two months). The Court reserved jurisdiction to reallocate support based on future information. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9. Julian is requesting this Court reconsider its prior order. We have already been before the Court twice on these issues. The first time, Judge Stoelker reviewed papers and made orders. The second time, Judge Blecher declined to make any changes to the existing orders. I generally deny Julian’s allegations as set forth in his motion. 2 Marriage ofCI-HNSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 l8 l9 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 10. Julian alleges the Court should reconsider its orders because I served my Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure the day of the hearing. This is not relevant and did not disclose any new information. My disclosures were in progress and they happened to be completed the day of the hearing. I served them upon completion. PDDs were not required for that hearing - and it is the serving of these disclosures which Julian bases his entire argument. ll. As this Court is aware, Julian has structured our finances in such a way that he is notified if I make a $5 payment. He has demanded I report receipts for every cent I spent, cut off electricity to me and the children if he felt I turned the heat too high. Julian has access to millions of dollars, far beyond what I have access to. Julian is aware of the $99,000 in community funds I have access to as he referenced it in his ReSponsive Declaration. Furthermore, 0n my filed 10/7/2020 Income and Expense Declaration, I referenced $72,514 in deposit accounts. fig Exhibit 2. There has never been a failure to disclose on my part. Those funds, like others, are subject to the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders and cannot be spent except on the necessities of life. By Julian’s own admission the carrying costs of the family home and other expenses are at least $38,000 per month. g Exhibits 3 and 4. I cannot maintain the costs of the home and the needs of our children without the current support orders being enforced. 12. Julian’s other “new fact” is that he was unable to speak at the hearing. Julian was represented by counsel at that hearing and the next hearing (first, Nancy Mass then Michael Wess). Both attorneys made the same representations to the Court that Julian makes now. The entire time, Julian simply sat there and said nothing while his attorneys spoke. In the video hearing, he made no attempts to speak. This is not a new fact. 13. He additionally represents he was to return to the United States in January, and attempts to use his new “future” US expenses as grounds for modification. As of the filing ofthis declaration, Julian is in Sydney. 3 Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 l4. The court should also note that Julian has stopped making the court ordered $15,000 support payments in March and April. However, he did make a lump sum partial payment on the American Express card so that his credit score would not drop as indicated in his most recent declaration. 15. I do not believe Julian’s motion was timely filed. Julian had 10 days from the day the orders were made to file his motion. The orders were made on December 3, 2020. The Order extending the restraining orders were sent via email on December 7, 2020 but not sewed, as the Court stated “You do not have to serve the restrained party because they or their lawyer were at the court date or agreed to reschedule the court date.” The motion therefore would have needed to be filed December 14, 2020 (December l3, 2020 is a Sunday, rolled to Monday). l6. Julian’s motion was filed January 4, 2021 . l7. Additionally, Judge Stoelker needs to be the one to hear the motion to reconsider, given that he made the order. He is not available and is not scheduled to hear the motion. 18. I request Julian’s reconsideration motion be denied in fill]. MODIFICATION OF CHILD AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT l9. I am simply requesting that if the Court is inclined to modify its prior order, it set support based on my DissoMaster and our 2019 tax returns.m Exhibit 5. Julian seeks to set support at $0, leaving me with no way to support myself or our two minor children, or maintain our community residence, while he remains overseas with access to millions of dollars. 20. Julian’s “change in circumstances” is the fact that he partially complied with Court orders which cost money. This is not a change. 21. As already pled, Julian has engaged in systematic financial abuse where the community assets were siphoned off or titled in his name in alone. The only assets where the community has an interest are frozen. They must remain frozen or I will have no 4 Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 remedies or ways to be made whole once the true nature and extent of Julian’s deception becomes known. 22. Julian is seeking to prevent me from proving his overseas wealth by having his family initiate a civil lawsuit against me in regards to my poséession of the very documents that prove his interests in foreign businesses and accounts. On March 29, 2021, I was informed that the Ting family intended to serve me with an Ex Parte civil complaint, with Jack Ting, Anne Ting, and Nicole-Ting Yap listed as the Petitioners. Jack, Anne, and Nicole are Julian’s father, mother and sister. 23. DeSpite Julian’s false allegations to the Court, he has enjoyed a lavish lifestyle in Australia since October 2020. He has been able to meet his needs sufficiently while I am 100% reliant on support. Currently, Julian is disregarding Court orders and has not made a support payment to me in March or April. 24. I request that the current orders remain in effect and that Julian be ordered to continue to pay $15,000 in monthly support in addition to all other financial orders currently in effect. Since, representing to the Court that he has been unable to comply with the support orders, Julian has hired two 0f the most expensive law firms in town, McManis Faulkner and BZB Family Law Group. Dan Barton, appeared with him at 2/1 8/2021 Status Conference, and his family has initiated civil proceedings against me. Julian also recently made a large payment on the American Express card. Julian has the money to pay support as currently set. 25. In the alternative, if this court wishes to modify spousal and child support, I request the Court order base guideline child support at $12,383 per month for Justin and Julianne, and base pendente lite spousal support be set at $1 8,178 per month based on the statement of calculations filed December l, 2020. This calculation was based on our last filed tax returns, and under In Re Marriage ofLoh, (2001) 93 Cal.App.4‘h 325, 332, tax returns are presumptively correct for purposes of calculating support. 5 Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 10 ll 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26. There are alternative methods of calculating support which may require an evidentiary hearing. Julian has access and control over millions of dollars and he has the ability to comply with the court’s current financial orders. Julian maintains that he does not have the funds to maintain the household expenses and pay the court ordered $15,000 in child and spousal support as set forth in his Motion for Reconsideration. However, in 2020 Julian paid for over $580,000 in community expenses and received at least $500,000” in foreign wire transfers. See Exhibit 6. He failed to disclose these transfers until he realized I already knew about them. I am aware that Julian has now attempted to falsify promissory notes to recharacterize these transfers of funds as loans, though it is clear these notes were created by Julianm the filing of the Petition for Dissolution and the subsequent restraining order. If the Court chooses to set support based on this influx of cash from international sources (which does not encompass the totality of income available for support), regardless of Julian’s false attempts to characterize these as loans, under In Re Marriage ofAlter, (2009) 171 Cal.App.4‘h 71 8, 73 ] , recurring gifts from family may be properly considered when setting support. 27. A third method of calculating support would be to use an expense driven analysis. Despite Julian’s claim of negative income, the preliminary reports from my forensic accountant, Mr. James Butera show that Julian has on average covered community expenditures averaging $45,781 per month. S_e_g Exhibits 6 and 7. At a bare minimum, as these expenses have been routinely met, this should be considered, but this again is a floor, not a ceiling. It is clear that the estimated amount currently being paid (Julian continuing to pay. the carrying costs of the home plus $1 5,000 per month in support) is an acceptable support amount pending ultimate resolution on this issue. 28. The Analysis of Expenditures for Years 2017 to 2020 report shows that in year 2020, JCT Holdings transferred $512,000 into Julian’s accounts (E*Trade x691 9, E*Trade 0909, Bank ofAmerica account x4357). See Exhibit 6. JCT Holdings Sdn Bhd is a Malyasian company that is owned equally by Julian and his sister. None of this income 6 Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 10 ll l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 2] 22 23 24 25 26 was disclosed on Julian’s December 2020 Income and Expense Declaration either as income received in the last twelve months 0r as loans. Additionally, this report reveals that in addition to those deposits, an additional $2.5 million dollars was deposited to Julian’s domestic accounts from unknown sources over the last four years. This is not the extent of Julian’s foreign transfers, I just learned of an additional wire transfer from JCT holdings of $146,036 into Bank ofAmerica, account ending x4357 on October 14, 2020. Julian can afford to comply with the court’s orders requiring him to pay $1 5,000 in child and spousal support in addition to the court’s other financial orders. 29. Mr. Butera’s Analysis of Foreign Transfers, report highlights Julian’s history of receiving millions in foreign wire transfers from overseas entities. SE Exhibit 7. The report shows that between 2004-201 8, Julian received over 5 million dollars in foreign wire transfers. The report also reflects an additional 1.6 million in income received from NYC, Inc. from 2009 through 2017. In the last 15 years, Julian has received almost 7 million dollars in funds, separatefiom those ofhis earnings, from foreign wire transfers. 30. Julian’s access to cash and his ability to comply with this court’s financial orders is further evidenced by his ongoing outlays of large sums of cash. In September 2019, he purchased two brand new Teslas and paid $170,000 in cash. Between 2019 and 2020, Julian renovated the Orange Avenue residence and spent over $800,000 doing so. Currently, Julian is investing millions of dollars in his Daly City real estate project. He has the ability to continue to pay support and his request to set support at $0 is nonsensical. 3 1 . Finally, Julian did not file an Income and Expense Declaration with this motion and therefore his requests for financial relief should be denied. 32. Lastly - Julian has not complied with my Discovery Demands for documents related to his income. I requested them timely and due to his repeated counsel changes, Julian has not provided any documents for our review other than his falsified promissory notes. 7 Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Julian is disentitled from seeking affirmative financial relief given his noncompliance with discovery and court orders. CONCLUSION 33. Based on the foregoing, I respectfully request that the Court: a. DENY Julian’s Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative to Modify Support b. GRANT my request for the existing financial orders to remain in effect as Julian has the ability to continue to pay; a. In the alternative, if the Court is inclined to set child and spousal support, GRANT my request to adopt the DissoMaster attached to my Statement of Support Calculations, filed December 1, 2020. c. GRANT my request for Julian to come current on the mortgage within 5 days of the hearing as previously pled; d. GRANT my request for $150,000 in need-based attorney fees and costs as previously pled; e. GRANT my request for no changes to custody or visitation orders; f. GRANT my request for the temporary restraining orders to be extended to the next court date. g. GRANT my request for sanctions against Julian in the amount of the actual attomey’s fees and costs incurred to respond to Julian’s request pursuant to Family Code section 271. The estimated amount is $7,500 with the actual amount to be provided at the time of hearing. 34. I thank the Court for taking the time to review my declaration. ** SIGNED AND DATED ON JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM ** 8 Marriage ofCHINSUPAKUL & TING Declaration of Petitioner Case No.20FL003262 EXHIBIT “G” to the Declaration of Michael G. Ackerman (In Support of Motion to Compel) - FAX 4l5.989.|663 COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP ONE MONTGOMERV STREET. SUITE 3000. SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94I04-5500 4l5.39l.4800 ©004¢UIAMNH NNNNNNNNNh-tn-tt-tI-Hh-Hu-u-u‘ OOxlONMADJNHOVOOONONmath-tc SCOTT C. HALL (State Bar No. 232492) SKYE LANGS (State Bar N0. 287908)EMLYN MANDEL (State Bar No. 310403)COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, California 94104-5500 Telephone: 415.391.4800 Facsimile: 415.989.1663 Email: ef-sch@cpdb.com ef-sdl@cpdb.com ef-erm@cpdb.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANNE TING, JACK TING, and NICOLE TING-YAP SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ANNE TING, an individual; JACK TING, Case No. 21 CV38] 1 10 an individual; and NICOLE TING-YAP, an individual, . n DECLARATION OF WONG SIEW INGPlaintiffS, IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER APPLICATIONv. PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, an individual; Trial Date; None Setand DOES 1 through 10, Defendant. DECLARATION OF WONG SIEW ING I, Wong Siew Ing, declare as follows: 1. I am the Company Secretary for Setima Sdn. Bhd. (“Setima”) and JCT Holdings Sdn. Bhd. (“JCT Holdings”). I have held this position since June 16, 2005. As Company Secretary, I am responsible for maintaining records about ownership of Setima and JCT Holdings, including information about the transfer of shares and the identity of the current shareholders. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein, except as to those stated on information and 1 . 1 CaseNo.21CV38HlO ECLARATION OF WONG SIEW ING IN SUPPORT OF 1| u TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER APPLICATION - FAX 4l5.989.l663 COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BAss LLP ONE MONTGOMERY STREET. SUITE 3000, SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94lo4-5500 4!5.39I.4800 \OMQQUIROJNH NNNNHI-HHHI-HHHr-t belief and, as to those, I am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. 2. Setima was formed in 1983. At that time, Setima acquired all the outstanding shares of JCT Holdings. JCT Holdings is wholly owned by Setima, and has been since 1984. 3. In 1996, Julian Ting owned 600,000 shares in Setirna. On November 30, 2000, he transferred all of these shares to his sister, Nicole Bin-Shun Ting (also known as Nicole Ting- Yap). Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of documentation showing this transfer. Since November 30, 2000, Julian Ting has not owned any shares of Setima or JCT Holdings. Executed on this 19th day of May, 2021, at Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia. WONG SIEW ING 18786.00! 4846-3929034“ 2 Case No. 21CV381 l Io DECLARATION 0F WONG SIEW ING IN SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER APPLICATION Exhibit} F O R M 3 2 A C o m p a n i e s A C 1 1 9 6 5 . S e c t i o n 1 0 3 ( 1 ) " W Q M O F T R A N S F E R O F S E C U R I T I E ‘ . . m a m a - - H i ‘ l ’ x ‘ . ’ ( ? ! 1 - » . W J - J ' u - - ' . - u " - I « r u m 1 . N A M E 0 F C O M P A N Y : S B T I M A S D N B H D U N B L O C K L E T T E R S ) 2 - ” U M B E R 0 F U N ' T S ‘ D E S C R I P T I O N 0 F S E C U R I T I E S ( I N F I G U R E S 8 1 W O R D S ) C E R T I F I C A T E N U M B E R ( S ) S I X H U N D R E D T H O U S A N D O R D I N A R Y S H R A E S ( 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 ) 3 . N A M E 0 F m A N S F E R o m s n u N B L o c h E n E R S ) T I N G J U L I A N B l N - L I N ( I ( E H E I N A F T E R C A L L E D ' T R A N S F E H O R ' ) 4 . 4 W A H D / P A S S P O R T / G e m w m _ ) T R U E c o p y 5 . N A M E 8 e A D D R E S S 0 F T R A N S F E R E E ( S ) : ( I N B L O C K L E T T E R S ) ( H E R E I N A F Y E R C A L L E D m e s r e n fi e - n T I N G N I C O L E B I N - S H U N 5 0 2 0 0 K L U M P U R G r o u n d H o a r , N C o m p a n y S E C r e i a r y o . 3 . L o r o n g P a h l a w a n 7 A 2 . J a l a n P a h u ' e w a n . 9 6 0 0 0 S i b u . S a r a w a k ‘ ’ - - 1 K m I . 4 - - - ‘ 3 4 f “ - ‘ \ " , . " n v g § 1 é ’ N A T u n t t F M S F E R O R I S ) : - S i g n e d s c a l e d a l i v e r p i n l h e p r e s P n g é ' o t ‘ . Q L ‘ " I 3 L ) D I S i g n a t u r e . - , V , , ~ n I t N a m e ” W l o fi C # n v t u fi ’ t fl u r } . - ' A d d r e s s ‘ L ‘ t , - O c c u p a l i o n J S i g n e d . s e a l e d a n d d e l i v e r e d i n l h e p t c s e n c c o f S i g n a t u r e N a m e A d d r e s s O c c u p a l i o n ‘ . . . . - . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . _ - s u s ~ A T u n E ( s m fi T m m ‘ s fi e h e s ‘ W T - X V ' T . \ . . a 5 . P A R T I C U L A R S 0 F T R A N S F E R E E ( S o u c o l u m n s b e l o w ) : ( I F T R A N S F E R E E l S A P E R S O N ) ( I F T R A N S F E R E E I S A B O D Y C O R P O R A T E ) I m a w - C a s l e n s m o r l N o . ( A l s o s l a w c o l o u r a l y p c m A l s o : I a l c c o u n t r y ) C o m p a n y N o J R c u i i l r a l i o n N u . N a t i o n a l i l y P l a t o o l I n c o m o m u o n L A U S T R A L I A N ‘ l l j R A C E ( l l M a l a y s i a n ] : T Y P E O F B O D V C O R P O R A T E D M a l a y D G o v c r n m c n l A g e n c w s fl n s fi l u l i o n s ’ S l a l u l o r v B o d i e s Z C h i n e s e D C o n l r o l l c d b y M a l a y s i a n s l M a l u v / a n l v o i l D I n d i a n D C a m r o l l c d b v M a l a y s - a n s l N o n - M l l a v s l N c n - N a u v e s l D D l h a l s ( S p c c i l y ) D C o n l r o l l c d h y N o n ~ M a l a y m a n s l a m " [ W e a r e ’ n o m i n e e ( s ) o f a p e r s o n r e s i d e n t i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( c o u n t r y ) . 7 . I N C O N S I D E R A T I O N O F T H E S U M H E R E I N M E N T I O N E D . ' I I W E ' . T H E T H A N S F E R O R . H E R E B Y T R A N S F E R T 0 T H E T R A N S F E R E E T H E S E C U R I T I E S R E F E R R E D T O I N P A R A G R A P H S 1 A N D 2 H E H E O F A N D ' I I W E ' , T H E T R A N S F E R E E , B E R E B Y A C C E P T T H E T R A N S F E R O F T H E S A I D S E C U R I T I E S . S i g n e d . s e a l e d a n d d e l i v e r e d i n I h n p r e s e n c e o f ’ ‘ - S l o n a l u r e ‘ . ‘ ; , ' - : ' = ‘ - ‘ 5 . x ‘ _ T I N G N c o B I U N ‘ 4 N a m e C H A N Y O m l A d a m s : L E V E fi " O L Y M P I A > L _ 8 J A C H U L A N / . 3 ' 5 0 2 0 0 K L U M P U R ‘ - O c c u p n l i o n E X E C . S E C . S i g n e d . s c a l e d a n d d e l i v e r e d i n m e m g fi q u 8 E n v o y ) S u k ‘ 4 3 F i - I n S a t a n : o m ‘ { H S i g n a t u r e I ' “ 1 ‘ ; @ W _ . V J » I J N a m e _ " . M 3 : ~ 5 . . \ . A d d l e s s C . “ ” ; ; a 9 - 3 ) > _ _ - ‘ R ~ m - < T i m b . P e m u n ~ u v " ' “ ‘ . - . ' a L “ - . I ‘ s . . . - I : l . - - , O c c u p a u o n J H D N / v m o l s fi m i m w , , 4 g a g s s . I , ( : 3 1 - T h y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s u m s o l l o n h i n a T r a n s f e r m a y d i fl e r ( m m m m w h i c h l h o h m S e l l e : w n l l r e c e l v fi b fi d fi é M u m : b y t h o C o n s i d e r a t i o n S u m ( i n W o r d s ) : R i n g g i t S I X H U N D R E D T H O U S A N D O N L Y C o n s i d e r a t i o n S u m ( i n R i n g g i t M a l a y s i a ) R M 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 v ’ ' b u y e r ; t h e S w m p O r d i n a n c e r e q u i r e s I h a l i n s u c h c a s o : l h c c o n s i d e r a t i o n m o n e y p a i d b v W u l h u o n c l n s c n c d i n I h e l o r m . n s r e g u l a t i n g a d v a l o r e m d u t y ( S u m p O l d m a n c c 1 9 1 9 ) . P l e a s e v e l a r I o i l c m 3 2 ( b ) , F i r s l S c h e d u l e o f l h c S l a m p O r d i n a n c e 1 9 1 9 [ o r l h e s t a m p d u l y c h a r g e a b l e o n s a l e o f a n y s t o c k . s h o r e : o r m a v k o l a b l n s n c u r i l i c s . 1 f I h o t r a n s l a t o r o r I r a n s t c m o i s a b o d y c o r p o r a t e . l h o o x c c u l i o n o ! m i s i n s t r u m u n l m u s t b e d o r m I n a c c o r d a n c e w i m ( h e p r o v i s i o n o l t h o c o n s l i l u l i o n o f i l s i n c o r p o r a l i o n . F ; a o m e d m i s 3 0 T H d a m N O V E M B E R , 2 0 0 0 8 ' S l r i k e o u t w h i c h e v e r i s i n a p p l i c a b l e . Q A h u s b a n d m u s l n o l w i t n e s s l h c s i g n a l u c o o ! h i s w i l e o r v i c e v c r s a