Rogelio Arellano vs. First Avenue Real Estate Group, Inc.Motion to Quash SubpoenaCal. Super. - 4th Dist.March 4, 201610 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 08M 42017 at 09:32:00 AM Clerk of the Superior Court By Brma Castle, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ROGELLIO L. ARELLANO Plaintiff, V. FIRST AVENUE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Defendant. N r N r ’ Ne er ” N r ” N e ” N e ’ N e ’ N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e N e ” N e ” N e N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e N e N e N e ” N e N e ” N e ” N e N e N e N e a N a N a Case No.: 30-2016-00838998-CU-WT-CJC Assigned: Hon Derek Hunt Dept: C23 AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN, TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO INVALIDLY SERVED DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT; MONETARY SANCTIONS SOUGHT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,260 AGAINST, PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGMEENT, INC., EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. AND LAW FIRM FRITZGERALD YAP KREDITOR, L [Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas and Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Filed Concurrently With Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, Esq. And Attached Exhibits] Date: Septempber 5, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: C23 Reservation #: 72639943 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS (AMENDED) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON September 5, 2017, in Dept. C23 at 8:30 a.m., of the Orange County Superior Court, located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701, purportedly served witnesses and targeted deponents, GENE J. GOLDSMAN (“Gene”) and LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN (“Linda”), in their personal (or individual) capacity, (collectively and interchangeably, “witnesses” or “witness” or “deponent” or “deponents”) make a “special appearance” for the limited purpose to move this court for an order quashing service of two different “deposition subpoena for production of business records” served on each witness by plaintiff, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. (“DPMI” or “plaintiff”) allegedly properly served and in compliance with California law and constitutional due process under state and federal law. Witnesses and targeted deponents, GENE J. GOLDSMAN and LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN bring this motion pursuant to California law including California Code of Civil Procedure sections 2020.010 - 2020.510 including 2020.220 et seq., 2025.010 - 2025.620, sections 2023.010 - 2023.030 et seq., sections 1987.1 et seq., 1987.2, 1985.3 et seq., 1985.6 et seq., the state and federal constitutional due process clauses, on the grounds that each of the two witnesses were not properly and validly served with service of their respective deposition subpoenas for the production of business records. Moving Witnesses both seek monetary sanctions and/or “reasonable expenses” of $1,260 against plaintiff, DPMLI, their attorney, Edward J. Farrell, Esq. and their law firm Fitzgerald Yup Kreditor, LLP, all jointly and severally related to this motion (see, generally, Honig, Esq. decl., including par. 10). This motion is based on Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas, Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, Esq. And Attached Exhibits, including the two invalidly served deposition subpoenas and their two respective proofs of service. Dated: July 21, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS HONIG Douglas 'Honi , Esq. Attorney for witnesses and deponents, Gene J. Goldsmhan and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION Moving parties, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman (“Linda”) and Gene J. Goldsman, (“Gene”) (collectively, “witnesses” or “witness” or “deponent” or “deponents”) are attorneys that move this court for an order to quash service of two purportedly validly served “deposition subpoenas for production of business records” issued by plaintiff, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANGAMENT, INC. (“DPMI” or “plaintiff”) (See, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 4). Production under the subpoena was set for July 24, 2017 on a subpoena that was purportedly validly served on July 7, 2017.. These subpoenas were purportedly validly served on each of the two witnesses, in their personal capacity, and not as an attorney representative for a client. Witnesses, Gene and Linda, both own and run a personal injury focused consumer protection law firm business entity entitled “Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC” located at 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92705. The law firm marque reads as, “GOLDSMAN LAW OFFICES.” This law firm is a California Corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. This law firm has numerous employees and litigates on behalf of and has hundreds of clients a year in courts in and around the State of California and primarily in Southern California. This law firm building is not a residence of the two moving attorney witnesses. Their law firm has a lobby which is supervised by a receptionist-employee of the law firm, “Jasmine Rea.” Other attorneys unconnected with Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC, also lease space in the building. On or about July 7, 2017, while Linda and Gene were not present at the law firm, plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc. served two “deposition subpoenas for production of business records” on witnesses by unauthorized personal or sub-service on the two witnesses law firm business, receptionist, Jasmine Rea. The deposition subpoena is related to a cross-complaint filed by plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc’s against a former employee, Rogelio L. Arellano, for defamation, related to his communications with Linda and Gene related to the management of an apartment building owned by Gene and Linda. The facts show that Gene and Linda were never personally served. Their law firm, Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC, business receptionist, Jasmine Rea, (“Rea” or 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “receptionist”) was never authorized to accept service for Gene and Linda in their personal or individual capacity. (See, Jasmine Rea decl.) Jasmine Rea was only authorized to accept service of litigation related documents for Gene and Linda’s law firm business entity's consumer-clients who are the subject of hundreds of actively litigated cases in courts throughout the State of California. DPMTI’s process server never made that clear to receptionist Jasmine Rea when DPMI attempted a dubious attempted service of two attorneys, Gene and Linda, at their law firm business address and the process server never asked if Gene and Linda were physically present and could come to accept litigation papers to be personally served on them. Gene and Linda never granted any authorized their law firm business’ receptionist, Jasmine Rea, to accept legal service of process of any papers on them, in Gene and Linda’s personal or individual capacity (see, Declaration of Gene J. Goldsman; Declaration of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Declaration of Jasmine Rea, all filed concurrently). Further, Gene and Linda were not at their law firm premises on the date of purported valid service of July 7, 2017, as stated in DPMI’s proof of service ( Honig, Esq., decl., Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4) Both Linda and Gene had boarded an airplane flight from John Wayne Airport, Santa Ana, California to travel to the East Coast, on July 6, 2017. It is an impossibility for Linda and Gene to be personally served on that date and time. Gene and Linda were never personally served with any subpoenas in the case of Diversified Property Management, Inc. v. Arellano (OCSC Case No. 30-2016-00849004). Further, Doug Honig, Esq., of Law Offices of Douglas Honig represents Gene and Linda as plaintiff litigants in another case before the Honorable James Crandall, which involves DPMI. However, that case is not deemed related, coordinated or consolidated with the case at bar. At no time did Douglas Honig, Esq. authorize that his law firm would accept service of litigation papers for Gene and Linda in a collateral case matter (See, Honig, Esq. decl.; Gene decl., Linda decl.) In response to the invalidly served two subpoenas, on July 19, 2017 Linda and Gene had their attorney, Law Offices of Douglas Honig serve by both personal service and overnight courier, objections to the subpoenas as invalid and being improperly served on Gene and Linda, along with specific objections to each category of document sought in the subpoenas (See, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 6) These objections were served on the plaintiff, DPMI’s 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney and their deposition custodian, Quantum Legal Support. 7d. Gene and Linda retained Law Offices of Doug Honig to resolve this invalid service of the two subpoenas at costs to them (see, Linda decl.; Goldsman decl.). Doug Honig’s attempt to meet and confer with plaintiff, DPMI’s counsel, Mr. Edward J. Farrell, Esq. of Fitzgerals Yup and Kreditor, LLP, result in no agreement by plaintiff to re-serve the two deposition subpoenas at issue (see, Honig, Esq. decl.). Thus this motion to quash is warranted and timely. Moving witnesses/deponents Gene and Linda seek monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP sections 1987.1, 2020.010 et seq. and 2023.010 et seq. Witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, hereby incorporate by reference their respective declarations, Declaration of Jasmine Rea and Declaration of their Attorney, Law Offices of Douglas Honig’s Douglas Honig, Esq.’s declaration an attached exhibits as if set forth in full herein. II. ARGUMENT A. THE COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY, AND THE OBLIGATION, TO QUASH THE PURPORTEDLY VALID SERVICE OF THE TWO PLAINTIFF, DPMI’S SUBPOENAS INVALIDLY AND UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN UNDER CCP SECTIONS 1987.1., 1985.3 AND 1985.6, AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT OVER EITHER WITNESS The two witness subpoenaed, any party, or any consumer whose personal records have been subpoenaed may move to quash or limit a deposition subpoena for production of business records. CCP §§ 1985.3(g), 1985.6(f), 1987.1; and City of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (Williamson) (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 883, 888. CCP section 1987.1 authorizes this court to quash or limit a subpoena. Section 1987.1 states: ‘/(a) If a subpoena requires the attendance of a witness or the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other things before a court, or at the trial of an issue therein, or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision (b), or upon the court's own motion after giving counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other order as may be appropriate to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. (b) The following persons may make a motion pursuant to subdivision (a): (1) A party. (2) A witness. (3) A consumer described in Section 1985.3. (4) An employee described in Section 1985.6. (5) A person whose personally identifying information, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1798.79.8 of the Civil Code, is sought in connection with an underlying action involving that person's exercise of free speech rights. (c) Nothing in this section shall require any person to move to quash, modify, or condition any subpoena duces tecum of personal records of any consumer served under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1985.3 or employment records of any employee served under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 1985.6.” CCP section 1987.1 (emphasis added) The two moving parties, Gene and Linda are “witnesses” who seek to quash service of the two subpoenas invalidly served upon them. This court lacks personal jurisdiction over the two witnesses as the two subpoenas were invalidly served and violate the two witnesses’ constitutional due process under state and federal law. The court must quash service of the two subpoenas (Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 3) B. SERVICE OF A DEPOSITION SUBPOENA UNDER CCP SECTION 2020.220 REQUIRES THAT THE SUBPOENA BE PERSONALLY DELIVERED TO THAT PERSON AND PLAINTIFF, DPMI FAILED TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, HENCE, PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS LACKING AND THE TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS TARGETING THE TWO WITNESSES MUST BOTH BE QUASHED CCP section 2020.010 -2020.510, governs non-party deposition discovery. The two targeted deponents, Gene and Linda are non-party’s to DPM] v. Rogellio L. Arellano before this 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR | PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 court. CCP section 2020.220(b)(1) covers service of a “natural person” which applies to Gene and Linda (see, Honig, Esq. decl., Exhibit 1 (subpoena to Gene, personally) and Exhibit 4 (subpoena to Linda, personally). Section 2020.220(a) - (b)(1) states: “(b) Any person may serve the subpoena by personal delivery of a copy of it as follows: (1) If the deponent is a natural person, fo that person.” CCP section 2020.220(b)(1) (emphasis added) As stated in Linda, Gene and Jasmine Rea’s declarations filed concurrently, the two Plaintiff DPMI subpoenas were not served personally to Gene and Linda. Neither Gene or Linda were inside the building nor anywhere near the building. Gene and Linda were on the East Coast at the time of the purported service of the two subpoenas on their law firm business receptionist (Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4) Nor was Gene and Linda’s law firm business Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC, entity personal injury lobby receptionist at 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, authorized to accept “personal” legal documents. The same is true for any attorney or law firm employees that work inside that address building or lease office space in that law building. On another note, service on a person's lawyer sufficient where the lawyer has no actual or ostensible authority to accept service in the action. That defendant knows the lawsuit is pending does not excuse service of summons requirements. Zirbes v. Stratton (1986) 187 Cal.App. 3d 1407, 1416-1417. Law Offices of Douglas Honig represents Gene and Linda in a collateral case matter before the Hon. James Crandall. However, the case at bar before the Hon. Derek Hunt does not involve Gene and Linda as parties. A party’s attorney in one legal matter does not endorse that attorney with a blanket authorized to accept service in all other legal matters, especially where an attorney’s clients are not parties in a collateral matter, which is the case at bar. This is especially true where as here, Douglas Hong, Esq. has stated, he has never granted the receptionist at S01 Civic Center Drive West, the authority to accept any legal documents for any legal matters other than in cases in which he is the attorney of record and certainly would not grant his receptionist the power to accept service of legal documents for individuals inside the building when served in their personal or individual capacity. 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This again, reveals the danger in not serving a deposition subpoena by personal delivery to the person stated on the subpoena as mandated under CCP section 2020.220(b)(1). Courts must make decisions to defend the constitution as to litigants and witnesses and make sure their constitutional rights are protected. In re Arthur N. (1974) 36 Cal. App. 3d. 935, 941. This is never so true in the case at bar where two attorney witnesses are served in their personal capacity (by the serving litigant purportedly claiming the two attorney witnesses unrelated law firm business receptionist who regularly accepts service of legal documents for the two attorneys’ litigation clients, then was authorized to accept service for the two attorneys, personally) That must be stopped as it affords members of the State Bar less protection of due process than standard litigants or witnesses. C. ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS DOES NOT CONFER PERSONAL JURISDICTION ABSENT SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE AND DEFECTS IN SERVICE ON TWO MOVING WITNESSES ARE NOT CURED BY ACTUAL NOTICE BECAUSE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE WERE NOT MET UNDER STATE AND FEDEREAL LAW Constitutional Due process under both state and federal law requires a method of service likely to result in the defendant receiving actual notice: “The means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the (defendant) might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., (1950) 339 US 306, 315 (emphasis and and see Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, supra, (1983) 462 US 791, 799. By the same token, defendant's actual notice of the litigation does not cure defects in service. Service of process in accord with FRCP 4 or applicable statutes is still required. [Mid-Continent Wood Products, Inc. v. Harris (7th Cir. 1991) 936 F2d 297, 301; Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music (6th Cir. 2004) 376 F3d 615, 623; see Mann v. Castiel (DC Cir. 2012) 681 F3d 368, 373-defendant's knowledge complaint filed not sufficient to establish court's personal jurisdiction; Sikhs for Justice v. Nath (SD NY 2012) 850 F.Supp.2d 435, 441]. Likewise, the two witnesses, actual notice of the invalidly served deposition subpoenas does not cure the defects in service complained of herein by the two moving parties, and hence the motion to quash service of the two deposition subpoenas. 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Personal Jurisdiction of a party or witness, via subpoena for production of business records or subpoena duces tecum is the same for service of summons as it is for the service of deposition subpoena. Due process must be complied with. “Although a proper basis for personal jurisdiction exists and notice is given in a manner which satisfies the constitutional requirements of due process, service of summons is not effective and the court does not aquire Jurisdiction of the party unless statutory requirements for service of summons are met.” Engebretson & Co. v. Harrison (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 436. Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, are under no duty to respond to a defectively served summons nor a subpoena for production of business records. Such knowledge of attempted or invalid or defective service does not dispense with statutory requirements for service of summons or a subpoena. Witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, as targeted deponents and witnesses related to the two subpoenas were not validly and legally served or sub-served as pursuant to California law and the California Code of Civil Procedure as established. Therefore, this court does not have personal jurisdiction over, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and services of the two respective subpoenas must be quashed. D. THE TWO WITNESSES SERVED TIMELY AND VALID DEPOSITION SUBPOENA OBJECTIONS AND THIS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE ON PLAINTIFF, DPMI'S COUNSEL AND DPMI’S DEPOSITION OFFICER, QUANTUM LEGAL SUPPORT ON JULY 19, 2017 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE AND FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE PRODUCTION DATE OF JULY 24, 2017 TO PRESERVE THEIR RIGHTS A CCP section 2025.010 ef seq. notice of deposition and a CCP section 2020.010 er seq. are both “deposition subpoenas” and identical rules apply for time limits. Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 123. Objections to a deposition subpoena must be served three (3) days prior to the date of the deposition which DPMI set for J uly 24, 2017. On July 19, 2017, five days prior, the two witnesses, Gene and Linda, personally served objections to the two subpoenas which objected to the validity of service in violation of constitutional due process along with other specific category objections (See, Honig, Esq. decl., Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 6) 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 t1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Monarch Healthcare v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal. App. 4M 1284, 1289.; CCP section 2025.410(a)-(b). The filing a motion to quash, or serving such written objections automatically excuses the custodian from producing the subpoenaed records until the court orders their production or the parties stipulate thereto. Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1985.3(g) and 1985.6(f). The two witnesses both personally served DPMI’s counsel and DPMI’s deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support on July 19, 2017 (Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 6) have preserved their objections generally and specifically, including constitutional due process and personal Jurisdiction by the court. E. WITNESSES GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND THEIR COUSNEL, ARE ENTITLED TO MONETARY SANCTIONS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, CCP SECTION 1987.2 “REASONABLE EXPENSES” FOR HAVING TO PREPARE AND FILE THIS MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF THE TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS AFTER PLAINTIFF, DPMI’S COUNSEL WOULD NOT AGREE TO RE-SERVE THE TWO SUBPOENAS DURING MEET AND CONFER EFFORTS The court may award reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing the motion to quash, including reasonable attorney fees, if the motion was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification. See, CCP § 1987.2(a); Evilsizor v. Sweeney (2014) 230 Cal. App. 4th 1304, 1306 [(broadly interpreting § 1987.2 “motion was made” language) and where § 1987.2 sanctions awarded against litigant who belatedly withdrew motion to quash that, although legitimately filed, was rendered unnecessary by subpoena's subsequent amendment) In the alternative, or on concurrent basis and grounds, the court must impose a monetary sanction against the losing party on the motion to quash unless it expressly finds that party acted with "substantial justification." Code of Civil Procedure, Section 2025(g); California Shellfish Co. v. United Shellfish Co. (1997) 56 Cal. App.4th 16, 25-26. The CCP section 2016.040, and CRC 5.98 (a) meet and confer Declaration of Douglas Honig, Esq., filed concurrently, discusses his meet and confer efforts with plaintiff, DPMI’s attorney, Mr. Edward J. Farrell of Fitzgerald Yup and Kreditor, LLP on July 20, 2017. Mr. Farrell would not agree to re-serve the two subpoenas even though witnesses’ counsel, Mr. Honig pointed out that the two subpoenas were invalidly served on Gene and Linda’s law firm business entity’s receptionist who lacked authorization to accept service for any personal capacity legal documents of Gene or Linda. 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 As stated in the concurrently filed Gene and Linda declaration and their Law Offices of Gene J. Golsdman, APLC’s receptionist, Jasmine Rea, no authorization was ever provided to Jasmine Rea to accept service and be authorized to accept service of a subpoena served on Gene and Linda, in their personal capacity. What plaintiff, DPMI did was attempt to serve two individuals at their business address, which normally has a receptionist that accepts legal documents on behalf of Linda and Gene as attorneys for their hundreds of personal injury clients. This was a dubious method of service. Further, the process server never identified that the legal documents were directed at Gene and Linda, personally (see, Jasmine Rea decl.; See Linda decl.; See, Gene decl.) Realistically, any attorney could be served in their personal or individual capacity at their law firm office because it is the custom and practice of a law firm business entity to have a receptionist regularly accept service of legal documents for the law firm businesses’ clients (and failure to do so could lead to breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice). Hence, as a matter of public policy and protection of members of the State Bar from unlawful service of legal papers, the motion must be quashed. What plaintiff, DPMI and their Deposition Officer Quantum Legal Support’s process server did has far reaching policy considerations related to constitutional due process and personal jurisdiction related to members of the State Bar who are involved in lawsuits and litigation or arbitration matters in their personal/individual capacity. The two subpoenas must be quashed. The two witnesses had to retain Law Offices of Douglas Honig and Douglas Honig, Esq. to draft up objections, pay to have them served personally and by overnight courier, and prepare and file this motion to quash. The two witnesses have incurred attorney time spent by Douglas Honig, Esq. of two hours at a total cost of $1,260 (which includes a $60 motion filing fee required by the court) (See, Honig, Esq. decl. including par. 10). An order should issue awarding the two witnesses and their counsel, Douglas Honig, Esq. $1,260 in monetary sanctions against, plaintiff, DPMI, Edward J. Farrell, Esq. and his law firm Fitzgerald Yup Kreditor, LLP, jointly and severally. CCP section 2023.010 discusses misuses of the discovery process as follows: *“ Misuses of the discovery process include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery. 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 # 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (b) Using a discovery method in a manner that does not comply with its specified procedures. (c) Employing a discovery method in a manner or to an extent that causes unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense. seeks (h) Making or opposing, unsuccessfully and without substantial justification, a motion to compel or to limit discovery. CCP section 2023.010 subdvs (a)(b)(c) and (h) all warrant an issuance of monetary sanctions in favor of the two moving witnesses along with 2023.020, 2023.030(a)-(f) and CCP section 2025.010 - 2025.620, as CCP section 2025.010°s deposition subpoenas apply equally to CCP section 2020.010 - 202.520, deposition subpoenas. Unzipped Apparel, LLC v. Bader (2007) 156 Cal. App.4th 123. Sanctions should issue in favor of the burdened witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein the two deposition subpoenas must be quashed and monetary sanctions under the aforementioned discovery statutes, and/or reasonable expenses including attorney fees under CCP section 1987.2, should issue to the two moving attorney witnesses, and targeted deponents, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over the two specially appearing witnesses. The court must move to protect the two witnesses constitutional due process rights under state and federal law. Dated: July 24, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF POUGLAS HONIG Douglas Flop Attorney forspggially appearing witnesses and targeted deponents, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda J. Goldsman 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY ALLEGEDLY SUBPOENED WITNESSES, GENE J. GOLDSMAN AND LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN TO QUASH SERVICE OF TWO DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Da 24 25 24 7 29 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ROGELIO ARELLANO Plaintiff, v. FIRST AVENUE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Defendant. N r ’ N r ’ N r ’ N e ’ N e N e N a N e N e N e a a a N r ” N r ” N e N e ’ N e ’ N e ’ N e ’ N e ” N e N e N e N e N e N e N a N N Case No.: 30-2016-00838998-CU-WT-CJC Assigned: Hon Derek Hunt Dept.: C23 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HONIG, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES [Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas and Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Filed Concurrently With Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, Esq. And Attached Exhibits] Date: August 29, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: C23 1 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HONIG, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HONIG, ESQ. I, Douglas Honig, Esq., do hereby declare as follows: 1. I'am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. The facts contained herein are from my personal knowledge. If asked to testify to them, I could and would do SO competently. This declaration is submitted in support of my two clients and witnesses, Linda Jacobson- Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s motion to quash service of a deposition subpoena for the production of business records. Iwas retained by my two clients in response to two subpoenas that were allegedly served on them during the first week of July 2017 in the above captioned case. I draft this declaration to satisfy the meet and confer requirements pursuant to CCP section 2016.040. I run and manage my litgation law firm business, Law Offices of Douglas Honig at 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California 92701. Ilease space in this building. I have done so for over two decades. 1 only represent Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman as my clients/parties in the case entitled, Gene J. Goldsman ef al. v. Ahmad Adeeb Azizi et al. Orange County Superior Court case no. 30-2016-00861024 before the Hon James Crandall. This case is never deemed related nor was consolidated with the case at issue before this court. At no time did I consent or give this law buildings receptionist, Jasmine Rea consent or authorization to accept service of any legal documents including subpoenas, in any other matter involving Diversified Property Management, Inc., including case number 30- 2016-00848044, Diversified Property Mangement Inc. v. Arrellano, now before this court. As a result of these unlawfully served subpoenas I have been retained by Gene Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman as “witnesses” or “targeted deponents” of the unlawfully served subpoenas, to object to the two subpoenas and resolve issues related to these two subpoenas. On July 19, 2017 by telephone, I called the attorney for the subpoenaing party, plaintiff, 2 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HONIG, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Diversified Property Management, Inc. I left a voicemail message for Edward J. Ferrell, Esq., of Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor, LLP (“plaintiff or “subpoenaing party”). 1 called the plaintiff again on July 20, 2017 at approximately 2:30 p.m. and spoke by telephone with Edward J. Ferrell, Esq. regarding issues surrounding the validity of service of the subpoena and substance sought in the subpoena. informed Mr. Ferrell that the service of the subpoena was invalid as there was no personal service on each of my two witness clients, personally, nor was my client’s law firm receptionist (Jasmine Rea) authorized to accept service of legal documents on behalf her two bosses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman in their personal capacity. In informed Mr. Ferrell that my two clients own and run a law firm. Mr. Ferrell acknowledged that he had my clients’ home addresses and he could potentially repeat service of the two subpoenas. I specifically inquired with Mr. Ferrell, whether he would re-serve the subpoenas but he refused to give me an answer. I was then forced to expend the time and resources to prepare the concurrently filed motion to quash service of the subpoenas on my two witness clients. 10. My hourly rate is $600 dollars. I have practiced law for 44 years. I have acted as a J nudge Pro Tem in Los Angeles Superior Court. I run a solo practice law firm that specializes in civil litigation and family law. Iexpended 2 hours researching, drafting, and preparing my clients’ motion to quash service of subpoenas. My travel time to and from the court is minimal as my office is across the street from the court. My total costs are $1,200 in attorney hours. The filing fee is $60 for a motion with the court. Hence my total costs for monetary sanctions related to this motion to quash is $1,260. 11. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a deposition subpoena for business Il /17 records that was allegedly personally served or subserved on witness, Gene J. Goldsman in his personal or individual capacity. This subpoena was provided to me by the office manager and bookkeeper for Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC. 3 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HONIG, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12. ~ Gene J. Goldsman subpoena. 13. 14. 15. 16. foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 20, 2017 DECLARATION OF DOUGLAS HONIG, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS I declare under penalty of perjury under the State Laws of the State of California, that the Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a deposition subpoena for business records “proof of service” that was provided by plaintiff's deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support to my law firm office when I requested a copy on July 20, 2017 for the Attached as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of Gene J. Goldsman’s personally served and overnight mailed served objections to the Gene J. Goldsman subpoena with proof of service. These objections were both hand served and sent via overnight courier to plaintiff, DPMI’s counsel and deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support for plaintiff, on July 19, 2017. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a deposition subpoena for business records that was allegedly personally served or subserved on witness, Linda Jacobson- Goldsman in her personal or individual capacity. This subpoena was provided to me by the office manager and bookkeeper for Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC. Attached as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of a deposition subpoena for business records “proof of service” that was provided by plaintiff's deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support to my law firm office when I requested a copy on July 20, 2017 for the Linda Jacobson-Goldsman subpoena. Attached as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman personally served and overnight mailed served objections to the Gene J. Goldsman subpoena with proof of service. These objections were both hand served and sent via overnight courier to plaintiff, DPMI’s counsel and deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support for plaintiff, on July 19, 2017 Douglas Hanig, Esq., declarant 4 SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES EXHIBIT 1 | Qua ntu m Q17-0369 1.2 1 irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 777-5496 Fax: (866) 227-9511 y | | NOTICE TO SUBPOENAED PARTY You have been served with a Deposition Subpoena - Business Records Only Custodian of Records for: [J New Address? (Please Provide) Records Pertaining to: Diversified Property Management v. Arellano DOB or Other ID; SSN: Complete and sign the Declaration of Records attached (see last page) and Records Mailed TO Quantum Legal Support, 17942 Sky Park Circle, Suite G, Irvine, CA 92614 Records Faxed TO Quantum Legal Support (866) 227-9511 Records Emailed LITO orders@quantum-fegal.com Records Available FOR COPY FOR PICKUP Please fill out & FAX THIS FORM TO: (866) 227-9511 RE: Q17-0369 1.2 or call (949) 777-5496. Copy Hours Chart Size Monday © {Circle One) Tuesday DO 4/4" Wednesday O Thursday O 1/2 Friday O 4m Appointment Required 0O on Contact Name & Phone #: No Records Available Complete and sign the Declaration of NO Records attached (see last page) and Declaration Mailed TO Quantum Legal Support, 17942 Sky Park Circle, Suite G, Irvine, CA 92614 Declaration Faxed [ Declaration Emailed TO: orders@quantum-legal.com TO Quantum Legal Support (866) 227-9511 SUBP-010 OUT ATTORNEY (Name, Slate 8ar number, and address); FOR COURT USE ONLY SBN: 261589 FAXNO.949-788-8980 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE STREET ACDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive West © MAWNG ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive West CITY AND ZIP CODE:Santa Ana, 92701 BRANCH NAME Central Justice Center ron proB ETRY BUR hecoros IFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): telephone number: 8S RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above, a. by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1. b. [__] by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b). c¢. [_] by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date js later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561 5 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): See Attachment 3 [Cx] Continued on Attachment 3. 4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. b (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (Proof of service on reverse) Fg Mange Page 10f2 CRE = DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Cote of Cul Procedure, 8 20410-02040 SUBP-010 {Rev. January 1, 2012) OF BUSINESS RECORDS Www courls.ca gov Westlaw Doc & Form Builder SUBP-010 - PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Diversified Property Management, Inc. CASE NUMBER; 30-2016-00848044 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Rogelio L. Arellano PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 1. | served this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person served (name):LINDA GOLDSMAN b. Address where served: ¢. Date of delivery; d. Time of delivery: e. (1) LT Witness fees were paid. 2. | received this subpoena for service on (dats): 3. Person serving: a. [__] Nota registered California process server. b. [__] California sheriff or marshal. ¢. [1 Registered California process server. d Employee or independent contractor of a registered California Process server. e. [J Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). f. [_] Registered professional photocopier. a [J Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451. h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For Cailfornia sheriff or marshal use only) California that the foregoing is true and correct, [ certify that the foregoing is frue and correct, Date: Date: (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) SUBP-010 (Rev. January 1. 2012] DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Page2or2 OF BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHMENT 3 TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Diversified Real Property Management, Inc. v. Arellano Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2016-00848044-CU-BC-CIC DEFINITIONS 1. “YOU” and “YOUR” means LINDA GOLDSMAN (“Responding Party”), Where appropriate (e.g. when asking for materials within “YOUR” possession, or referring to matters within “YOUR” knowledge or acts done by YOU), YOU and YOUR also includes Responding Party’s agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, partners, attorneys and investigators of Responding Party. &; “DOCUMENTS” are intended to have the broadest possible meaning and encompass without limitation the definitions of EVIDENCE and WRITING set forth in Evidence Code §§ 140 and 250, respectively, and include the original or copy, and both sides thereof, of any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication and representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, and symbols, or combinations of them. 3. “CORRESPONDENCE” means the giving, receiving, transmitting, or exchanging of information, including, but not limited to, any and all in-person, telephonic, and electronic (email) conversations by or with any person, talk, gestures, or “DOCUMENTS,” as defined in the paragraph above, which memorialize or refer to any “CORRESPONDENCE”. 4, “RELATE(S),” “RELATED,” or “RELATING” means in connection with, in preparation of, arising out of, resulting from, or having any logical relation to. 5. “IDENTIFY” means to provide the name and/or last known address and telephone number of each PERSON listed, or the name and location of the item or DOCUMENT requested. 2694191.1 6. “PERSON(S)” refers to the plural as well as the singular, and means any natural person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, public entity, or any other form of legal entity or governmental body unless the context indicates otherwise, DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED L. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Rogelio Arellano from November 1, 2015 to the present. 2; All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Caesar Maldonado from November 1, 2015 to the present. 3. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Rogelio Arellano at any time RELATING TO Ahmad Azizi. 4, All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Caesar Maldonado at any time RELATING TO Ahmad Azizi. 5. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Rogelio Arellano at any time RELATING TO Diversified Real Property Management, Inc., First Avenue Construction and/or Diversified Association Management. 6. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO Diversified Real Property Management, Inc., First Avenue Construction and/or Diversified Association Management after December 1, 2015. 7. All DOCUMENTS that show any work or services performed by Rogelio Arellano on any of YOUR properties after December 1, 20015. 8. All DOCUMENTS that show any work or services performed by Caesar Maldonado on any of YOUR properties after December 1, 2015, DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS Regarding: Diversified Property Management v. Arellano SSN: DOB or Other ID: Our File No.: Q17-0369 L.2 I, the undersigned, am the duly authorized custodian of records for Linda Jacobson Goldsman 501 West Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 and I have the authority to certify records. Iam qualified to testify as to the preparation and maintenance of the records sought by the subpoena attached hereto and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. Further, I hereby certify to the following: (LJ CERTIFICATION OF RECORDS COPIED: 1. The accompanying copies are true copies of all records in my custody or control described in the subpoena, OQ (If applicable, when only partial records are produced.) The following records described in the subpoena are not in my custody for the following reasons: 2. The records were prepared or received by the personnel of the responding business in the ordinary and regular course of business at or near the act, condition or event related in such records. 3. The accompanying records were prepared in the following manner: O from microfilm/microfiche; (J from computer stored data; [J by photocopying the original paper record; [by electronic duplication process; (J by photographic duplication process: (J other (describe): (LJ CERTIFICATION OF NO-RECORDS (Custodian's initials ) 1. A thorough search has been made for the documents, records and things called for in the subpoena or authorization and, based upon the information provided, no such items were found, 2. No copies of records were transmitted because we do not have said records. 3. Explanation of reason why you have NO RECORDS AND/OR X-RAYS: [ declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on , 20 at Signature (Print Name) \s UnionBank ' QUANTUM LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. (00) 238.4430 unlanbankcom . UR Ee i645/ 5220 9s] ; : : 5 RTE (nda Goldsmad | § (S00 i DOLLARS : df ze oY) v2 3 ) VOID AFTER 90 DAYS 2 MEMO QD 1 ~ 3 69, Lor RCL CT Te ae yr TT ne "O05 hb 1032 2000LAEE O03 ALEAL SL QUANTUM LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. 5214 EXHIBIT 2 SUBP-010 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Diversified Property Management, Inc. CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Arellano 30-2016-00848044 DUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORD Witness fees were paid. Amount: } $ 15.00 2) [] copying fees were paid. Amount: sevesse 3 2. received this subpoena for service on (date): Jul 3,2017,10:19 am 3. Person serving: Not a registered California process server. California sheriff or marshal. Registered California process server. Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). Registered professional photocopier. Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: Steve Pearson, Orange County Reg. No. 2668 Quantum Legal Support, Inc. 17942 Sky Park Circle, Suite G Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 777-5496 s 0 00 0R 0O 0 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only) California that the foregoing is true and correct. I certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 07/07/2017 Date: IM\-- (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012] DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF Page 2 of 2 BUSINESS RECORDS EXHIBIT 3 10 1d 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ase No.: 30-2016-00848044 )EPONENT AND WITNESS, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. Plaintiffs, J IVERSIFIED PROPERTY ANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION UBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF USINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JUL , 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, DWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. ho ROGELLIO L. ARELLANO Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND DEPOSITION OFFICERS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that witness and targeted deponent, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN (“deponent” “targeted deponent” or “witness”) hereby objects to Plaintiff, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANGAMENT, INC'S (“plaintiff” or “subpoenaing party”) “Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records” (“subpoena”) issued on July 3, 2017, by plaintiff's attorney, Edward J. Farrell, Esq., through deposition Officer, Quantum Legal Support, Inc. in the case of Diversified Property Management, Inc. v. Rogellio L. Arellano. The subpoena is objectionable on numerous grounds including but not limited to failure to properly personally serve the witness with the subpoena in violation of constitutional due process under state and federal law. 1 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN'’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Witness or deponent or targeted deponent, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN objects as follows: CATEGORY NO. 1 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 ef seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; 2 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 2 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. 3 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Briff v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks 4 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 3 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; 5 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 4 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The 6 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.'S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment ri ghts; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Briss v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to 7 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GQLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 5 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 ef seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ 8 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIEE , DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 6 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be 9 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF , DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. 10 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF ; DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 7 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 er seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine 11 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Brits v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. 12 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CATEGORY NO. 8 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 ef seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information 13 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. Respectfully submitted: LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG Dated: July 19, 2017 Douglas S. Honjg, Attorney for Witnesses, Deponents and Targeted Deponents, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman 14 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 501 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 9270 served the foregoing document(s) described as: DEPONENT AND WITNESS, L BJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. on the interested parties by PERSONAL the offices of the addresses below: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on the 19th day of July 2017. in the Santa Ana, California. ~~ 15 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY. EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. EXHIBIT 4 Q17-0369 L1 rosy enum Legal Support Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 777-5496 Fax: (866) 227-9511 NOTICE TO SUBPOENAED PARTY | | You have been served with a | Deposition Subpoena - Business Records Only Custodian of Records for: [J New Address? (Please Provide) Records Pertaining to: Diversified Property Management v, Arellano DOB or Other ID: SSN: Complete and sign the Declaration of Records attached (see last page) and Records Mailed [] TO Quantum Legal Support, 17942 Sky Park Circle, Suite G, Irvine, CA 92614 Records Faxed TO Quantum Legal Support (866) 227-9511 Records Emailed TO orders@quantum-legal.com Records Available FOR COPY FOR PICKUP Please fill out & FAX THIS FORM TO: (866) 227-9511 RE: Q17-0369 L1 or call (949) 777-5496. Copy Hours Chart Size Monday © (Circle One) Tuesday © 1/4" Wednesday 0 Thursday 0 172" Friday oO qo Appointment Required 0 on Contact Name & Phone #: No Records Available Complete and sign the Declaration of NO Records attached (see last page) and Declaration Mailed [] TO Quantum Legal Support, 17942 Sky Park Circle, Suite G, Irvine, CA 92614 Declaration Faxed [] TO Quantum Legal Support (866) 227-9511 Declaration Emailed [] TO: orders@quantum-legal.com SUBP-010 T ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Bar number, and address); SBN: 261589 FAXNO.949-788-8980 nagement, Inc. FOR COURT USE ONLY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COQUNTY OFORANGE STREET ADDRESS: 7000 Civic Center Drive West MAILING ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive West CITY AND ZIP CODE:Santa Ana, 92701 BRANCH NAME. Central Justice Center CA | wisoopamons USINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: E STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): telephone number: Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above, a. [xX] by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in jtem 1. b. [1 by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b). ¢. [1 by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney's representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours. 2. The records are to be produced by the date and time shown in item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, if any, are recoverable as sef forth in E accompanied by an affidavit of the custodian or other qualified witness pursuant idence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be to Evidence Code section 1561. 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): See Attachment 3 Continued on Attachment 3. 4.1F YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS. (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS SUBPOENA MAY BE PUNISHED AS CONTEMPT BY THIS COURT. YOU WILL ALSO BE LIABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULT ING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. MTL (Proof of service Page { of 2 Form Adopted fox Marvitory Use DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Ba SUZP.010 [Rev January 1, 2012) OF BUSINESS RECORDS VW courts. ca.gov Westlaw Dac & Form Builder SUBP-010 - PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Diversified Property Management, Inc, CASE NUMBER: 30-2016-00848044 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Rogelio L. Arellano PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 1. 1 served this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows: a. Person served (name):GENE J. GOLDMAN b. Address where served: ¢. Date of delivery: d. Time of delivery: e. (1) [1 witness fees were paid. 2. | received this subpoena for service on (date): 3. Person serving: a. [_] Not a registered California process server. b. [1] california sheriff or marshal, 1 Registered California process server. Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. C d e Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). f. £1 Registered professional photocopier. g h Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451. . Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of {For California sheriff or marshal use only) California that the foregoing is true and correct. | certify that the foregoing is true and correct, Date: Date: (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012] DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION Fage2of2 OF BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHMENT 3 TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Diversified Real Property Management, Inc. v. Arellano Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2016-00848044-CU-BC-CIC DEFINITIONS L “YOU” and “YOUR” means GENE J. GOLDSMAN (“Responding Party”). Where appropriate (e.g. when asking for materials within “YOUR” possession, or referring to matters within “YOUR” knowledge or acts done by YOU), YOU and YOUR also includes Responding Party’s agents, representatives, employees, officers, directors, partners, attorneys and investigators of Responding Party. 2. “DOCUMENTS” are intended to have the broadest possible meaning and encompass without limitation the definitions of EVIDENCE and WRITING set forth in Evidence Code §§ 140 and 250, respectively, and include the original or copy, and both sides thereof, of any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photographing, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication and representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, and symbols, or combinations of them. | 3. “CORRESPONDENCE” means the giving, receiving, transmitting, or exchanging of information, including, but not limited to, any and all in-person, telephonic, and electronic (email) conversations by or with any person, talk, gestures, or “DOCUMENTS,” as defined in the paragraph above, which memorialize or refer to any “CORRESPONDENCE”, 4, “RELATE(S),” “RELATED,” or “RELATING” means in connection with, in preparation of, arising out of, resulting from, or having any logical relation to. 5 “IDENTIFY” means to provide the name and/or last known address and telephone number of each PERSON listed, or the name and location of the item or DOCUMENT requested. 2694191.1 6. “PERSON(S)” refers to the plural as well as the singular, and means any natural person, firm, association, partnership, corporation, public entity, or any other form of legal entity or governmental body unless the context indicates otherwise, DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Rogelio Arellano from November 1, 2015 to the present. 2. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Casi Maldonado from November 1, 2015 to the present. 3. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Rogelio Arellano at any time RELATING TO Ahmad Azizi. 4, All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Caesar Maldonado at any time RELATING TO Ahmad Azizi, 5. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and Rogelio Arellano at any time RELATING TO Diversified Real Property Management, Inc., First Avenue Construction and/or Diversified Association Management. 6. All CORRESPONDENCE between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO Diversified Real Property Management, Inc., First Avenue Construction and/or Diversified Association Management after December 1, 2015. 7s All DOCUMENTS that show any work or services performed by Rogelio Arellano on any of YOUR properties after December 1, 2015. 8. All DOCUMENTS that show any work or services performed by Caesar Maldonado on any of YOUR properties after December 1,2015, DECLARATION OF CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS Regarding: Diversified Property Management v. Arellano SSN: DOB or Other ID: Our File No.: Q17-0369 L1 1, the undersigned, am the duly authorized custodian of records for Gene J. Goldsman 501 West Civic Center Drive Santa Ana, CA 92701 and I have the authority to certify records. Iam qualified to testify as to the preparation and maintenance of the records sought by the subpoena attached hereto and, if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto. Further, I hereby certify to the following: [J CERTIFICATION OF RECORDS COPIED: 1. The accompanying copies are true copies of all records in my custody or control described in the subpoena, oO (If applicable, when only partial records are produced.) The following records described in the subpoena are not in my custody for the following reasons: 2. The records were prepared or received by the personnel of the responding business in the ordinary and regular course of business at or near the act, condition or event related in such records. 3. The accompanying records were prepared in the following manner: 0 from microfilm/microfiche; [J] from computer stored data; [LJ by photocopying the original paper record; [J by electronic duplication process; (Jby photographic duplication process; (J other (describe): O CERTIFICATION OF NO-RECORDS (Custodian's initials -_- 1) 1. A thorough search has been made for the documents, records and things called for in the subpoena or authorization and, based upon the information provided, no such items were found. 2. No copies of records were transmitted because we do not have said records. 3. Explanation of reason why you have NO RECORDS AND/OR X-RAYS: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on , 20 at Signature (Print Name) ee, \s UnionBank ‘QUANTUM LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. Re unfonbankcom 17942 SKY PARK CIR SUITE G IRVINE, CA 92614 Lee g/l { [c 7) Ee Gee Gils | $ [S05 os A heen 4 1c iia | DOLLARS VOID AFTER 90 DAYS AL AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE 34 3 5 2 5 a 5 8 zg 3 wo D039, | a #005 2 fe 1.42 Z000LSEIE O03 ALHBL SL QUANTUM LEGAL SUPPORT, INC, 5215 EXHIBIT 5 SUBP-010 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Diversified Property Management, Inc. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Arellano CASE NUMBER: 30-2016-00848044 zed to Accept Witness fees were paid. Amount: $ 15.00 (2) [] Copying fees were paid. Amount: $ f. Fee for service: 2. received this subpoena for service on (date): Jul 3,2017, 10:19 am 3. Person serving: a. [__] Nota registered California process server. b. [] california sheriff or marshal. c. [XJ Registered California process server. d. 1] Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. e. [__] Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). f. [__] Registered professional photocopier. g [|] Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451. h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number: Steve Pearson, Orange County Reg. No. 2668 Quantum Legal Support, Inc. 17942 Sky Park Circle, Suite G Irvine, CA92614 (949) 777-5496 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of (For California sheriff or marshal use only) California that the foregoing is true and correct. | certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 07/07/2017 Date: M-- (SIGNATURE) (SIGNATURE) SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012] DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF Page 2 of 2 BUSINESS RECORDS EXHIBIT 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY Case No.: 30-2016-00848044 MANAGEMENT, INC. INE Plaintiffs, , DIVE ROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION v. SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY ROGELLIO L. ARELLANO mdi J. FARRELL FSO. Xs Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND DEPOSITION OFFICERS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that witness and targeted deponent, GENE GOLDSMAN (“deponent” “targeted deponent” or “witness”) hereby objects to Plaintiff, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC’S (“plaintiff” or “subpoenaing party”) “Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records” (“subpoena”) issued on July 3, 2017, by plaintiff’s attorney, Edward J. Farrell, Esq., through deposition Officer, Quantum Legal Support, Inc. in the case of Diversified Property Management, Inc. v. Rogellio L. Arellano. The subpoena is objectionable on numerous grounds including but not limited to failure to properly personally serve the witness with the subpoena in violation of constitutional due process under state and federal law. 1 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Witness or deponent or targeted deponent, GENE GOLDSMAN objects as follows: CATEGORY NO. 1 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” 2 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 2 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates 2 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 ef seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. 4 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 3 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 er seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; 5 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the liti gation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 4 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under 6 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 er seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the 7 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAIN TIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 5 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 ef seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; 8 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 6 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following 9 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of 10 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OB] ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J, FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 7 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 ez seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. 11 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJ ECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment ri ghts; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Britt v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice to consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal Jaw (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. CATEGORY NO. 8 12 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The DOCUMENTS sought through the subpoena at issue as worded, and to be produced by targeted deponent, deponent, and witness are objectionable on the following grounds: The subpoena violates constitutional due process under state and federal law. The subpoena was not properly personally served on the witness via personal service or under another manner of service acceptable pursuant to State and Federal law including the California Code of Civil Procedure. The subpoena, even if it had been properly served on witness, is untimely and violates the time periods and procedures set forth under State and Federal law, including the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.010 et seq., and further, violates State and Federal law, and constitutional due process under State and Federal law. DOCUMENTS sought invade witnesses and third parties’ right to privacy under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought invade and violate the attorney-work product privilege / doctrine for witness, witness’ clients and attorney for witness. DOCUMENTS sought violate the attorney-client privilege of witness and witness’ attorneys; DOCUMENTS sought are not directly relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by witnesses first amendment rights; DOCUMENTS sought are protected by the litigation privilege or are otherwise privileged under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought are not relevant; DOCUMENTS sought and the subpoena process used constitute an “abuse of process” under State and Federal law; DOCUMENTS sought lack a showing of a compelling need for nonparty information and are not directly relevant and essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit. Brift v. Superior 13 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 859. DOCUMENTS sought do not constitute “business records” or records of a business of witness; DOCUMENTS sought are records of a “consumer” and subpoenaing party has failed to provide any proper notice via compliance with a timely and properly served, “notice fo consumer” served on the consumer under State and Federal law (including but not limited to the California Code of Civil Procedure section 1985 et seq., 1985.3, 1985.6). DOCUMENTS sought are unduly, burdensome, harassing and oppressive and seeks information regarding topics that are unrelated or beyond the scope of the litigation. DOCUMENTS sought are overbroad and overbroad in scope and time. DOCUMENTS sought are vague, ambiguous and unintelligible as worded. DOCUMENTS sought invade the spousal privilege and/or marital privilege. Respectfully submitted: LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG Dated: July 19, 2017 / Douglas sl Honig, Attorney for Withesses, Deponents and Targeted Deponents, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene Goldsman 14 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. Iam over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 501 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 9270 2 served the foregoing document(s) described as: PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. on the interested parties by PERSONAL DELIVERY and o the offices of the addresses below: Ti 18 19 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above oo || 1s true and correct. 21 1» || Executed on the 19h day of Tuy 2017, in the Santa Ana, California. 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 DEPONENT AND WITNESS, GENE GOLDSMAN'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF, DIVERSIFIED PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.’S DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS ISSUED ON JULY 3, 2017 BY THEIR ATTORNEY, EDWARD J. FARRELL, ESQ. 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ROGELIO ARELLANO Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AVENUE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Defendants. N r ’ N r ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e ” N e N e ” N e N e ” N e N e N e N e N e ” N e N e N e N e N e N e N e ” N e N e Na N e N e N e N e Na N a N e Case No.: 30-2016-00838998-CU-WT-CJC Assigned: Hon Derek Hunt Dept.: C23 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, GENE J. GOLDSMAN, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES [Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas and Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Filed Concurrently With Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, | Esq. And Attached Exhibits] Date: August 29, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept... C23 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, GENE J. GOLDSMAN IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS | SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF GENE J. GOLDSMAN I, Gene J. Goldsman, Esq., do hereby declare as follows: 1. Iam over the age of 18 and a targeted subpoenaed witness in this case by plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc. ~The facts contained herein are from my personal knowledge. If called upon to testify to them, I could and would do so competently. I'am a shareholder and principal of the “Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, A Professional Law Corporation” organized under the laws of the State of California. Iam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. My law firm business address is 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, 92701. I run a civil litigation law firm that focuses on consumer protection-personal injury litigation at this aforementioned address. Ido not live at this aforementioned address and it is not my personal residence. This declaration is submitted in support of my motion to quash service of a “deposition subpoena for production of business records” directed at me, “personally,” that was unlawfully served upon me, by service upon my law firm business address receptionist. A copy of this subpoena for production of my personal business records is attached to the “Declaration of Douglas Honig, Esq.” which is to be filed concurrently. My wife, and co-moving party, witness, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, is also an attorney licensed in the State of California. On Thursday, July 6, 2017, I left my law firm business address identified above to take a plane flight from John Wayne Airport which was scheduled to depart at approximately 4:50 p.m. My wife, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and I had travel plans to travel together for an urgent family matter on the East-coast. I left my law firm office at approximately mid-day, that day to prepare to make that place flight and travel. Upon my return to Southern California after my short personal family matter on Monday, July 10, 2017, I was informed by my law firm bookkeeper that a deposition subpoena for production of business records had been delivered to my law firm business receptionist, 2 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, GENE J. GOLDSMAN IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. 11. 12. 13. “Jasmine Rea.” An inspection of the subpoena revealed the subpoena identified me, personally and not as an attorney for one of my hundreds of personal injury clients. I have reviewed the proof of service of the subpoena and it states that I was allegedly served on July 7, 2017. A copy of this proof of service is attached to my attorney, Doug Honig, Esq.’s declaration filed concurrently. At no time on July 7, 2017, was I ever served personally with this subpoena based on my own personal knowledge and account. At no time ever have I ever been personally served with any legal documents in the case entitled “Diversified Property Management, Inc. v. Rogelio L. Arellano” including the subpoena at issue which is attached to the Declaration of Douglas Honig, Esq. Further, I was not even available and present to be personally served with legal documents and this subpoena on July 7, 2017 because I was out of State on that date, Further, my law firm, Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC, is not a party nor involved in the aforementioned case. This is simply my place of business where I work as an attorney and run a law firm business. As a targeted subpoenaed witness in this case, I was never personally served with the subpoena. I therefore move to quash service of this subpoena against me. My spouse, also moves to quash service of the subpoena purportedly served on her personally, as well. At no time did I authorize or grant my law firm business’ legal receptionist, “Jasime Rea” permission to accept service of documents on my personal behalf. At no time did 1 authorize or grant my law firm business’ legal receptionist, Jasime Rea permission to accept service of documents on behalf of my wife, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman on her personal behalf. My law firm business receptionist, Jasmine Rea is only authorized to accept legal documents served my law firm’s litigation clients through Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC. I nor my wife, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman do not live at 501 Civic Center Drive West. That is not our residence. That is our law firm where we do business at. Further, Law Offices of Douglas Honig runs a law firm business in office space in my law firm’s building located at 501 Civic Center Drive West. He has done so for over two decades. Douglas Honig, Esq. is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of 3 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, GENE J. GOLDSMAN IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14. 15. 16 California. Douglas Honig, Esq. represents both me and my spouse in a collateral case entitled, Gene J. Goldsman ef al. v. Ahmad Adeeb Azizi et al. Orange County Superior Court case no. 30-2016-00861024 before the Hon. James Crandall. This case is not deemed related nor was consolidated with the case before this court. At no time did I consent or give Douglas Honig, Esq., and his law firm consent or authorization to accept service of any legal documents including subpoenas, in any other matter involving Diversified Property Management, Inc., including case number 30- 2016-00848044, Diversified Property Mangement Inc. v. Arrellano, now before this court. On July 19, 2017, my attorney, Douglas Honig, Esq. personally served objections on my behalf and on my spouse’s behalf related to the two subpoenas allegedly served on me through my law firm business receptionist, Jasmine Rea. These objections were also served by overnight courier on both plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc’s law firm and attorney and on this plaintiff’s deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support. These objections were to the subpoena in general and as to each and every category of documents sought in the subpoena. The objections are attached to my attorney, Douglas Honig, Esq.’s declaration. . Without valid personal service on me the service of the subpoena must be quashed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the State Laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 21, 2017 He see C Gene ¥ Goldsman. Esq., declarant 4 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, GENE J. GOLDSMAN IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON- GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ROGELIO ARELLANO Case No.: 30-2016-00838998-CU-WT-CIC Assigned: Hon Derek Hunt Dept.. C23 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN, ESQ., IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES V. FIRST AVENUE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Defendant. [Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas and Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Filed Concurrently With Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, Esq. And Attached Exhibits] Date: August 29, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: C23 N e N r N r ? N r N e ’ N e ? N a N e ? N e ’ N e ” N e ’ N e ” N e ’ N e ” N e a N e a N e a N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e N e a N e N N 1 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN I, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq., do hereby declare as follows: 1. Iam over the age of 18 and a targeted subpoenaed witness in this case by plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc. The facts contained herein are from my personal knowledge. If called upon to testify to them, I could and would do so competently. I am a shareholder and co-manage the Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, A Professional Law Corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. My law firm business address is 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, 92701. I run and co-manage this civil litigation law firm that focuses on consumer protection-personal injury litigation. The aforementioned address is a law firm business address and not my nor my husband, Gene J. Goldsman’s residential home address. This declaration is submitted in support of my motion to quash service of a “deposition subpoena for production of business records” directed at me, “personally,” that was unlawfully served upon me, by service upon my law firm business address receptionist. A copy of this subpoena for production of my personal business records is attached to the “Declaration of Douglas Honig, Esq.” which is to be filed concurrently. My husband, and co-moving party, witness, Gene J. Goldsman, Esq., is also an attorney licensed in the State of California. On Thursday, July 6, 2017, 1 left my residence about mid-day, to drive to take a plane | flight from John Wayne Airport which was scheduled to depart at approximately 4:50 p.m. My husband, Gene J. Goldsman, Esq., and I had travel plans to travel together for an urgent family matter on the East-coast. Upon my return to Southern California after my short personal family matter on Monday, July 10, 2017, I was informed by my law firm bookkeeper that a deposition subpoena for production of business records had been delivered to my law firm business receptionist, “Jasmine Rea.” An inspection of the subpoena revealed the subpoena identified me, 2 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. 11. 12. personally and not as an attorney for one of my hundreds of my law firm’s personal injury clients. I have reviewed the proof of service of the subpoena and it states that I was allegedly served on July 7, 2017. A copy of this proof of service is attached to my attorney, Doug Honig, Esq.’s declaration filed concurrently. At no time on July 7, 2017, was I ever served personally with this subpoena based on my own personal experience. At no time ever have I ever been personally served with any legal documents in the case entitled “Diversified Property Management, Inc. v. Rogelio L. Arellano” including the subpoena at issue which is attached to the Declaration of Douglas Honig, Esq. Further, I was not even available and present to be personally served with legal documents and this subpoena on July 7, 2017 because I was out of State on that date. Additionally, I am only at the law firm approximately one time a month which is often related to a sensitive law firm business or personnel issue. I was not physically present at my law firm the week of July 4 2017. Personal service could not have occurred at 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, as the proof of service of the subpoena which shows July 7, 2017 service states. Further, my law firm, Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC, is not a party nor involved in the aforementioned case. This is simply my place of business where I work as an attorney and run a law firm business. As a targeted subpoenaed witness in this case, I was never personally served with the subpoena. I therefore move to quash service of this subpoena against me. My spouse, also moves to quash service of the subpoena purportedly served on him personally, as well. At no time did I authorize or grant my law firm business’ legal receptionist, “Jasmine Rea” permission to accept service of documents on my personal behalf. At no time did I authorize or grant my law firm business’ legal receptionist, Jasime Rea permission to accept service of documents on behalf of my husband, Gene J. Goldsman on his personal behalf. My law firm business receptionist, Jasmine Rea is only authorized to accept legal documents served my law firm’s litigation clients through “Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC.” 3 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 1" 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 111 111 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF 13. 14. 13. Further, Law Offices of Douglas Honig runs a law firm business in office space in my law firm’s building located at 501 Civic Center Drive West. He has done so for over two decades. Douglas Honig, Esq. is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. Douglas Honig, Esq. represents both me and my spouse in a collateral case entitled, Gene J. Goldsman et al. v. Ahmad Adeeb Azizi ef al. Orange County Superior Court case no. 30-2016-00861024 before the Hon. James Crandall. This case is not deemed related nor was consolidated with the case before this court. At no time did I consent or give Douglas Honig, Esq., or his law firm, consent or authorization to accept service of any legal documents including subpoenas, in any other matter involving Diversified Property Management, Inc., including case number 30- 2016-00848044, Diversified Property Mangement Inc. v. Arellano, now before this court. On July 19, 2017, my attorney, Douglas Honig, Esq. personally served objections on my behalf and on my spouse’s behalf related to the two subpoenas allegedly served on me through my law firm business receptionist, Jasmine Rea. These objections were also served by overnight courier on both plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc.’s law firm and attorney and on this plaintiff's deposition officer, Quantum Legal Support. These objections were to the subpoena in general and as to each and every category of documents sought in the subpoena. The objections are attached to my attorney, Douglas Honig, Esq.’s declaration. 4 DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16. Without valid personal service on me, the service of the subpoena must be quashed. I declare under penalty of perjury under the State Laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 21, 2017 Lui ah Lira J regan Goldsnnan, detaran I 4 5 DECLARATION OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN , IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Douglas S. Honig, Esq. SBN 57340 LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS S. HONIG 501 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, California 92701 (714) 973-1191 Attorney for Deponents and witnesses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson Goldsman SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER UNLIMITED JURISDICTION ROGELIO ARELLANO Case No.: 30-2016-00838998-CU-WT-CJC Assigned: Hon Derek Hunt Dept.: C23 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF JASMINE REA IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES Vv. FIRST AVENUE REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC. Defendant. [Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas and Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Filed Concurrently With Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, Esq. And Attached Exhibits] Date: August 29, 2017 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept.: C23 N a N r ” N a e N e ” N e N e ” N e ” N e ” a N e N e ” N e ” N e ” N e N e ” N e N e ” N e N a N e ” N e N e N e N e N e N e SN N e a N a a N a a N N 1 DECLARATION OF JASMINE REA, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, Jasmine Rea do hereby declare as follows: I. DECLARATION OF JASMINE REA, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS DECLARATION OF JASMINE REA Iam over the age of 18 and a witness related to the service of a subpoena in the above captioned case by plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc. The facts contained herein are from my personal knowledge. If called upon to testify to them, I could and would do so competently. I'am an employee of the Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, A Professional Law Corporation. This is a personal injury litigation law firm business. It is located at 501 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701. I have the title of “receptionist.” I work the front receptionist desk of this law firm. My work responsibilities require me to answer telephones for the law firm and take messages related to law firm clients. I also communicate with other law firm employees about clients or other law firm related matters when individuals come into our business office entry area where we have a lobby. Ialso receive deliveries brought in by delivery services and companies, like UPS, FedEx, USPS and other delivery companies and persons. Iam often asked to sign for packages and envelopes related to this law firm. I receive about 7 law firm related packages / envelopes daily at the receptionist desk. I am often asked to sign for envelopes and packages delivered to this law firm. My responsibilities are also to do the same for another law office tenant in our building, Law Offices of Douglas Honig. Ireceive about 2 to 3 packages/envelopes a day for his law firm business. Irecall on or about July 7, 2017, that I received a single envelope from a delivery gentleman that came into our law firm business lobby. This gentleman walked in with an envelope in his hand and said, “these are for Gene Goldsman.” That was all he said to me. This gentleman handed me a clipboard to sign. Isigned it. Ibelicved at that time I signed the clipboard and took the envelope, that this document envelope delivery was the typical standard envelope/package delivery I normally receive for my employer’s law firm business’ personal injury clients at Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, APLC. I 2 UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 111 111 then gave the envelope to our office manager / bookkeeper because Gene Goldsman nor Linda Jacobson-Goldsman were both not at the office. At no time did the process server gentleman ever request to see Gene Goldsman or Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, personally and request they come to my front receptionist desk so they could be personally served with the two subpoenas. At no time was I authorized to accept personal service on behalf of my two bosses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, by either of them. That is outside my work responsibilities as a receptionist for the Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman. I only am authorized to sign for and receive envelopes/packages for the law firm, Law Offices of Gene J. Goldsman, as a business which includes envelopes/packages for the law firm’s hundreds of active client files. The same is true for accepting personal service of legal documents for any other law firm office attorney / tenant, in their personal capacity, that has office space in our law offices building. Had the gentleman that brought in the subpoenas been clear about what he was serving and was requesting for me to accept and sign for, I would not have signed for personal service subpoenas on my two bosses, Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman. If I had been informed by the gentleman that brought in the envelope with the subpoenas, that I was signing for litigation subpoenas directed at Gene J. Goldsman and Linda- Jacobson Goldsman, personally, I would have not signed for the envelope/two subpoenas. I would have asked the gentleman to wait and then spoken to the law firm office manager and waited for her to come to the lobby area to communicate with this gentleman. 3 DECLARATION OF JASMINE REA, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN’S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1:7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. At no time during my short interaction with this gentleman, this gentleman never informed me that he was a process server and was there to serve legal documents on Gene J. Goldsman and Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, in their personal or individual capacity) (and not as attorneys for our personal injury clients at Law Offices of Gene J. Golsdman, APLC). I declare under penalty of perjury under the State Laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: July 21, 2017 AI AL Der ZL Jasmine Rea., declarant 4 DECLARATION OF JASMINE REA, IN SUPPORT OF WITNESS, LINDA JACOBSON-GOLDSMAN AND WITNESS GENE J. GOLDSMAN'S MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF DEPOSITIONS SUBPOENAS UNLAWFULLY SERVED ON WITNESSES 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business address is 501 W. Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92701. On August 9,2017, I served the within document(s) described as: Witnesses, Linda Jacobson-Goldsman and Gene J. Goldsman’s Motion To Quash Service of Deposition Subpoenas and Memorandum of Points & Authorities In Support; Filed Concurrently With Declaration Of Gene J. Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Linda Jacobson-Goldsman, Esq.; Declaration Of Jasmine Rea; Declaration Of Douglas Honig, Esq. And Attached Exhibits on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows: Edward J. Farrell, Esq. Fitzgerald Yap Kreditor, LLP 16148 Sand Canyon Ave. Irvine, CA 92618 For plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc. Quantum Legal Support 17492 Sky Park Circle Suite G Irvine, CA 92614 Deposition officer for plaintiff, Diversified Property Management, Inc. William Crosby, Esq. 13522 Newport Ave. Suite 201 Tustin, CA 92780 Attorney for defendant, Rogelio L. Arellano By Mail - Iam “readily familiar” with the firm office’s business practice and procedures of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under the practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Santa Ana, California in the ordinary course of business. I deposited such envelope containing the document(s) in the mail at Santa Ana, California pursuant to this law office’s business practices and procedures. To the best of my knowledge I have followed these regular mail practices and procedures on the date herein. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. [] By Fax - I faxed such document from fax number (714) 541-0456 to the fax numbers listed by each recipient. The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2005(1), a record of the transmission was printed. 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 20 21 22 27 28 J By Email - Pursuant to oral and/or written agreement with C1 emailed the document(s) to the email addresses provided by the party or parties in this action. = By Personal Service - I delivered said envelope corresponding to the above party(s) ames by hand on the date specified above, State - I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. [] Federal - Ideclare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made, and I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 9, 2017, at Santa Ana, California. Luiz Angelo Gamboa Print Name Signature 2 PROOF OF SERVICE
