Memorandum Points and Authorities

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

Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/21/2021 1:14 PM Reviewed By: M. Sorum Case #21CV381110 Envelope: 6689099 21CV381110 Santa Clara - Civil M. Sorum \OOOQQKJI-§WNt-n NNNNNNNNM-u-Aflr-owu-tn-tn-In-An-n OOQO\M#MNHO\ONQO\MAUNHO 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, ) Case No.: 21CV381 l 10 an individual; and NICOLE TING-YAP, an ) individual; ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND ) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F Plaintiffs, g MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER vs. ) Date: TBD ) Time: TBD ) Dept.: 7 PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, an individual; ) Judge: Christopher G. Rudy and DOES 1 through 10; 3 ) Defendants. 3 INTRODUCTION: This is an action brought by Anne and Jack Ting and their daughter, Nicole Ting-Yap, for conversion, violation of their right of privacy, violation of Penal Code Section 502 (improper access to computer data), misappropriation of trade secrets and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims all arise from Defendant Panida Chinsupakul’s alleged accessing of a data storage system located in the garage in their family home and her husband’s (Julian Ting) laptop computer, iPad and iPhone, all in an effort to ascertain the nature and extent of the income he has received from the family businesses located in Australia and Malaysia. All ofthe devices were the community property - 1 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE No.: 21CV381 1 10 \OOOHONKJIhbJNo-n NNNNNNNNv-nv-ar-nr-ar-n-iu-Ir-AHu-a gN¢MAmNHO©WQGMbWNHO of the parties. Panida and her husband are currently involved in a marital dissolution case in which Julian Ting claims that he has no employment and no ownership interest in any ofthe family businesses, and is therefore unable to pay any support for his wife and his two minor children ages 14 and 16. In 2000, four months before he was to be married to Panida, he transferred ownership of all of his shares in Setima Sdn Bhd, the holding company that holds all of the outstanding shares in JCT Holdings, to his sister, Nicole. Prior to the transfer, he held 292,000 shares while his sister only held 146,000 shares. In 2019, Julian reported $1,145,488 in income (or $95,457.33 per month). Julian reported that he received “gifts” from his family starting in 2003 totaling in excess of $2,400,000. It is Defendant’s contention that the transfer of shares to his sister was intended to avoid his shares being subject to a community property claim and that his sister holds the shares as the trustee for Julian. Defendant has attempted to schedule the deposition ofNicole Ting-Yap to be taken by Zoom. She currently resides in Australia. Her attorneys refuse to schedule her deposition for a starting time before 7:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. If Defendant were to take a seven (7) hour deposition, which she is permitted to do, the deposition would last until 2:00 a.m. PST. Defendant’s counsel attempted to arrive at a compromise, suggesting the deposition start at 4:00 or 4:30 p.m. but Plaintiff’s counsel have refused. It is requested that this court grant a protective order that the deposition of Nicole Ting-Yap be set on a mutually convenient date starting at 4:00 p.m. in the aftemoon. Absent such a protective order, Defendant will not be able to take PlaintiffNicole Ting-Yap’s deposition at a reasonable time for counsel and the court reporter here in California. Aw A. Pursuant to C.C.P. Section 2025.420, This Court May Issue The Requested Protective Order C.C.P. Section 2025.420 provides in pertinent part: “(a) Before, . . . a deposition, any party, . . . may promptly move for a protective order. . . . (b) The court, for good cause shown, may make any - 2 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO.: 21CV381110 \DOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNt-tv-Iu-u-n-no-tn-tt-Ip-tn-A OONQM-PWNHOOOONQMAWN-‘O order that justice requires to protect any party . . . from unwarranted. . . oppression, or undue burden or expense This protective order may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following directions: . . . (2) That the deposition be taken at a different time. . . . (5) That the deposition be taken only on certain specified terms and conditions.” As indicated in the attached declaration ofMichael G. Ackerman, counsel for Defendant, Defendant has attempted to schedule the deposition ofNicole Ting-Yap for a date and time starting at 4:00 p.m. PST. This would require Plaintiff to attend starting at 7:00 a.m. Australia time. Plaintiff has refused insisting that her deposition start at 7:00 p.m. (10:00 am. Australia time) which will require counsel and the coun reporter to work until 12:00 am. to 2:00 am. PST depending on how long the deposition takes to complete. This is an unwarranted burden on counsel and the court reporter simply because Ms. Ting-Yap refuses to rise at an early hour in the morning. As indicated in the attached declaration of Panida Chinsupakul, her sister-in-law lives in a lavish home having servants and a nanny for her minor child who lives at home. It is unreasonable and a burden on Defendant, her counsel and the court reporter for Plaintiff to refilse to appear at an earlier time for her deposition. “Before, during, or after a deposition, any party, any deponent, or any other affected natural person or organization may promptly move for a protective order.” (Code Civ. Proc.. 8 2025.420. m; cf. Code Civ. Proc., §203 1 .060, subd.(a.) The motion must be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 2016.040. (Code Civ. Proc.. 6 203 1 .060. M.) “The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwanted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, rr undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., 2025.420, subd. (b); cf. Code Civ. Proc. 203 1 .060, subd. (bL) Code Civil Procedure section 2025.420, subdivision (b), provides a nonexclusive list of permissible directions that may be included in a protective order. (Cf. Code Civ. Proc.. 8 203 1 .060, subd. (bL) - 3 - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO.: 21CV381110 N \OOONONUI#UJ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The issuance and formulation 0f protective orders are to a large extent discretionary. (See Coalition Against Police Abuse v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 888, 904 [216 Cal. Rptr. 614].)”. (Raymond Handling Concepts Corp. V. Superior Court (1995) 39 Cal. App. 4‘“ 584, 588 [45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 885].) Ruling on motions for protective orders will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. (See Moskowitz v. Superior Court (1982) 137 Cal. App. 3d 313, 3 17 [187 Cal. Rptr. 4].) (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. (2014) 223 CA 4'“ 261, 3 16-3 17, 167 Cal. Rptr. 173). Good cause exists for issuing a protective order in this case providing for the deposition of Nicole Ting-Yap to start at 4:00 p.m. PST.W On the basis of the above-cited statutes and authorities and the declarations of Michael G. Ackerman and Panida Chinsupakul, good cause exists for the issuance of a protective order that the deposition of Nicole Ting-Yap shall commence at 4:00 p.m. PST on a date to be mutually convenient to the parties and counsel. Dated: DATED: June )1 , 2021 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. A RMAN '7‘ / / ?HAE?/.ACKERMAN, ESQ.meys or Defendant, PANIDA HINSU AKUL _ 4 _ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1N SUPPORT 0F MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE No.: 21CV381110