Separate Statement

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

\OOOQmM-hWNp-n NNNNNNN-st-It-tv-tt-t-nt-np-nr-AH gngth-‘OKOOOQQMAMNHO 21CV381 1 1O Santa Clara - Civil Michael G. Ackerman, Esq. (SBN 64997) LAW OFFICES 0F 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; Plaintiffs, VS. and DOES 1 through 10; ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) g PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL, an individual; g 3 Defendants. g ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant PANIDA CHINUSPAKUL submits the following separate statement in support of her motion to compel. Request for Production Number 1: Any and all writings (as defined in Evidence Code Section 250) which relate or refer to the transfer of Y. Cha 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 Case No.: 21CV381 1 10 DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION T0 COMPEL RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 0F DOCUMENTS AND COMPLIANCE WITH RESPONSES T0 REQUESTS T0 PRODUCE AND FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST NICOLE TING- YAP (C.C.P. SECTION 2031.310(A) AND (H)) Date: -T-B% 12/1 6/21 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: 7 Judge: Hon. Christopher G. Rudy DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL VGZ CASE No.: 21CV381 l 10 KOOOQOthWNr-I NNNNan-v-ir-‘t-tH-Ir-Iu-sp-fi 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 Number 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. Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that it is 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, 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 Julian 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 wrongfillly 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 produce documents sufficient to show that Julian Ting currently owns no shares ofJCT or Setima, and has not since November 30, 2000. - 2 - DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381 1 10 \OOOQQUIAUJNH NNNNNNNNNHHHHHn-I-t-In-II-A OOHQM-bbJNHowOONQMhwafi-‘O Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Reguest No. 1: This request seeks documents relating directly to PlaintiffNicole Ting-Yap's allegation that she is the owner ofthe shares in Setima and/or JCT Holdings previously held by her brother Julian which were transferred to her in November of 2000. This information further relates to whether the transfer was fraudulent and made to deprive Defendant and their children of support and to deprive Defendant of a potential community property interest in the shares that were held by Julian. Further, this information may form the basis of a claim in a cross-complaint to be filed by Defendant for the imposition of a constructive trust against the shares previously in Julian’s name but transferred to Nicole for no consideration. Request for Production Number 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 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. Response to Request Number 2: 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 palty 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 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 - 3 - DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381110 \OOOQQUIAUJN-n NNNNNNNu-ct-uwv-‘r-Iy-nr-t-st-sg-n ggQMAWNHOOMQQMhMN-‘O calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, because this dispute solely concerns the theft ofprivate 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 wrongfiJlly 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 produce documents sufficient to show that Julian Ting transferred his 600,000 shares in Setima Sdn Bhd to Nicole Ting on November 30, 2000. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 2: This request seeks documents relating directly to PlaintiffNicole Ting-Yap‘s allegation that she is the owner ofthe shares in Setima and/or JCT Holdings previously held by her brother Julian which were transferred to her in November of 2000. This information further relates to whether the transfer was fraudulent and made to deprive Defendant and their children of support and to deprive Defendant of a potential community property interest in the shares that were held by Julian. Further, this information may form the basis of a claim in a cross-complaint to be filed by Defendant for the imposition of a constructive trust against the shares previously in Julian's name but transferred to Nicole for no consideration. Request for Production Number 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 Number 3: Responding party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected from - 4 - DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION T0 COMPEL CASE No.: 21CV381110 \OWQQUIAUJNv-n NNNNNNNHHHHI-AHHHn-Ir-A gBGM-§WN~O\OOOQO\M-PWNHO 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 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 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 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. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 3: This request seeks documents relating directly to PlaintiffNicole Ting-Yap's allegation that she is the owner ofthe shares in Setima and/or JCT Holdings previously held by her brother Julian which were transferred to her in November of 2000. This information further relates to whether the transfer was fraudulent and made to deprive Defendant and their children of support and to deprive Defendant of a potential community property interest in the shares that were held by Julian. Further, this information may form the basis of a claim in a cross-complaint to be filed by Defendant for the imposition of a constructive trust against the shares previously in Julian's name but transferred to Nicole for no consideration. /// DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381110 \OOOQQUI-BUJN-s NNNNNNNHl-‘flHflt-t-np-ng-H gBGM-PWNHOOOOQQM-pLDNHO Request for Production Number 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. Response to Request Number 4: 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 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. 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 ofa protective order. Responding Party objects to this request to the extent it seeks the production of documents that are confidential, proprietary and/or commercially sensitive. 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. 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 theft 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. DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381 1 10 \OOOQQUIAUJNr-n NNNNNNMNI-t-I-tu-I-nr-tr-It-tr-su-A gQGM-PwN'dOOOONONM-hUJNHO Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Compliance With Prior Responses: PlaintiffNicole Ting-Yap has agreed to comply with the request but has failed to do so. She has stated that she wants a protective order to be entered in this case and then has refused to agree to a form of protective order. Request for Production Number 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 Reguest Number 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 confidential, proprietary 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/ 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 of the 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 secret information that was stolen in order to obtain a remedy for the theft 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. DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION T0 COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381110 \OOOQQMAMNH NNNNNNNa-nv-tn-Iu-A-nn-s-nn-mv-nt-a g3¢mthHO©OOQ¢MAUJNHO Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Compliance With Prior Responses: Plaintiff Nicole Ting-Yap has agreed to comply with the request but has failed to do so. She has stated that she wants a protective order to be entered in this case and then has refused to agree to a form of protective order. Request for Production Number 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. Response to Request Number 6: 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 is overbroad and unduly burdensome, in that it seeks “all” documents that “refer or relate” to possible loans spanning a 21-year period. Responding Palty 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 ofthe 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 - 3 - DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION T0 COMPEL CASE N0.: 21CV381110 \OWQGMAMN 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses t0 Request No. 6: This request seeks information relating to the payments made to Julian Ting in the form of loans, gifts or distributions by JCT Holdings to determine if the payments were for his true ownership interest in the company or for services rendered in the guise of a gift or a loan that was never to be repaid. Request for Production Number 7: All tax returns for Sctima 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 Number 7: Responding party objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information protected fi'om 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 returns, 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 ofthe 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 wrongfillly obtained. Plaintiffs have no obligation to affirmatively disclose private and confidential information in order to obtain a remedy for the theft of - 9 _ DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL CASE N0.: 21CV381110 \OOOQQM-QUJN-I NNNNNNNr-tr-II-It-tp-nn-tn-nr-IHH ggmmAWNHOOWQQM-PWNHO 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 of admissible evidence. Factual and Legal Reasons for Compelling Further Responses to Request No. 7: This request seeks information relating to the payments made to Julian Ting in the form of loans, gifts or distributions by JCT Holdings to determine if the payments were for his true ownership interest in the company or for services rendered in the guise of a gift or a loan that was never to be repaid. Request for Production Number 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. Resgonse to Request Number 8: 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 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 ambigous, 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 -10- DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION TO COMPEL CASE NO.: 21CV381110 \OOOVO\UIAUJN'-‘ NNNNNNNNNp-t-tu-tv-nn-«n-‘wr-afly-n OOQONM-waHOOOOflQUl-bWND-‘O 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 of admissible evidence Factual and Le al Reasons for Com ellin Further Res onses to Re uest No. 8: This request seeks information relating to the payments made to Julian Ting in the form of loans, gifts or distributions by JCT Holdings to determine if the payments were for his true ownership interest in the company or for services rendered in the guise of a gift or a loan that was never to be repaid. DATED: August 42, 2021 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL G. A RMAN /// fl ix /MICHAE . ACKERMAN, ESQ. Attorneys or Defendant, PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL - 11 _ DEFENDANT PANIDA CHINSUPAKUL’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 0F LEGAL AND FACTUAL REASONS SUPPORTING MOTION T0 COMPEL CASE N0.: 21CV381110