Notice of Motion And Motion To QuashMotionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.June 3, 2016Oo 00 N N nn BR W N N N N N N N N N N e k e m e m em e m e m e m ee d e d ce NN O N Wn BR W N = O O e N N N R W N = O AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC SAMUEL A. WONG, State Bar No. 217104 CINDY PHAM, State Bar No. 286893 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92618 Telephone: 94) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 swong@aegislawfirm.com cpham@aegislawfirm.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Frida Fuentes ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California, County of Orange 0472172017 at 04:44:00 Ph Clerk of the Superior Court By Danielle Jurado, Deputy Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - FRIDA FUENTES, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. G & M OIL COMPANY, INC, a California corporation; G&M OIL CO., LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants. CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER Case No. 30-2016-00856305-CU-OE-CJC Assigned for all purposes to. Judge: Hon. James J. Di Cesare Dept.: C16 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,060.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CINDY PHAM; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Hearing Date: May 19, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: C16 [Reservation No. 72574185] Complaint Filed: June 3, 2016 Trial Date: October 23, 2017 -1- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. © 0 ~~ N hh hR W N N O N N O N N N e m e m = e e e e e l TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on May 19, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department C16 of the above-entitled Court, Plaintiff Frida Fuentes (“Plaintiff”) will move this Court to quash the subpoena for business records G&M Oil Company, Inc. and G&M Oil, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) served on Plaintiff’s current employer, See’s Candy Shops, Inc. In addition, Defendants and their counsel, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, joint and several, should be sanctioned in the amount of $3,060.00 pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1987.2 and 2023.020, for failing to participate in the meet and confer process and by failing to withdraw the subpoenas after receiving notice that the subpoenas were issued for improper purposes. This Motion is made pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.3(b)(3), 1985.3(g), 1985.6 and 1987.1 on the grounds that there is good cause for the issuance of said order in that the Subpoena invades Plaintiffs right to privacy, is being sent to Plaintiff's current employer for the purpose of harassing and intimidating Plaintiff, and seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this case nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Even if the information is arguably relevant, Defendants’ interest in obtaining the information is outweighed by Plaintiff’s privacy rights. This Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the Declaration of Cindy Pham attached hereto, the Separate Statement of Disputed Issues, and on such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this Motion. Dated: April 20, 2017 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC By: Samuel A. Wong Cindy Pham Attorneys for Plaintiff Frida Fuents I MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. pt © ® uN ON wn Bs W N No N O N N N N N N em em em e m em e m pe d e m e m 2 Q B OU ER 8 B RE 8 38 3 a oo 2 ww oo - o MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES L INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Frida Fuentes (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Quash seeks to quash Defendants G&M Oil Company, Inc. and G&M Oil, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”) issued on March 30, 2015, which demands attendance records from Plaintiff’s current employer, See’s Candy Shops, Inc. (“See’s Candies”) pertaining to Plaintiff's attendance and time records during the period of June 23, 2015 through July 2, 2015. Defendants’ issuance of this Subpoena is harassing, irrelevant and an attempt to invade Plaintiff’s right to privacy in such records. Defendants’ Subpoena is nothing more than an attempt to create friction for Plaintiff at her current place of employment. Defendants have failed to show a particularized need for the discovery requested by the Subpoena, or that the discovery sought is directly relevant to a cause of action or defense. Defendants have no rights to these records because the records sought are protected by Plaintiffs right to privacy. The balance between the right to privacy and the need for discovery strongly weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s privacy rights, because the documents are not directly relevant to this litigation and Defendants cannot show a “compelling public interest” for this discovery. Significantly, the discovery sought by the Subpoena is available through less intrusive means. Assuming Defendants could articulate a compelling public interest sufficient to entitle them to some of the information sought by the Subpoena, there exists feasible and effective alternatives to Defendants’ conduct that would have a much lesser impact on Plaintiff’s privacy rights - obtaining the information from Plaintiff herself. Throughout the course of this litigation, Plaintiff has been nothing but forthcoming during the discovery process. Defendants have yet to depose Plaintiff or notice her deposition. Instead, Defendants have elected the most - intrusive means to obtain information which can easily be disclosed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has attempted to meet and confer with Defendants’ counsel of record on the Subpoena. To date however, Plaintiff has not received a response. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Quash should be granted in its entirety and Be MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. O e N N nn BR W N N N N N N N N N N e e e e e a e m e e e m e e ® = AA WM B R A W N =m S Y o N Wn A W N = O Defendants and their counsel should also be sanctioned in the amount of $3,060.00 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1987.2 and 2023.020, for Defendants’ failure to withdraw the Subpoena after receiving notice that the Subpoena was issued for improper purposes and for failing to engage in the meet and confer process which forced Plaintiff to proceed with this Motion. II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. PLAINTIFF'S EMPLOYMENT WITH DEFENDANTS Plaintiff began working for Defendants in August of 2011 as an Operations Assistant. See Declaration of Cindy Pham ( “Pham Decl.”), § 3, Exhibit (“Ex.”) A, § 13. Throughout the duration of her employment, Defendants promoted Plaintiff twice. /d. Her last position with Defendants was “Benefits Administrator” in Defendants’ human resources department as a non-exempt employee. Pham Decl., § 3, Ex. A, 913-14. On or about May 28, 2015, Plaintiff informed her supervisor, Annette Honrada-Beck (“Ms. Honrada-Beck™) that she was suffering from severe stress and anxiety attacks. Pham Decl., § 3, Ex. A, 9 15. Plaintiff also informed Gerardo Canchola (“Mr. Canchola™) about her anxiety attacks. Pham Decl., § 3, Ex. A, Y 16. Neither Ms. Honrada Beck nor Mr. Canchola apprised Plaintiff of her rights under the California Family Rights Act. Pham Decl., § 3, Ex. A, 99 15-16. Instead, Ms. Honrada-Beck accused Plaintiff of not being able to handle the job. Pham Decl, § 3, Ex. A, 9 15. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff experienced severe symptoms related to her condition, including chest pains. Pham Decl., | 3, Ex. A, { 17. Plaintiff informed Ms. Honrada-Beck that she needed to go to urgent care and also notified Mr. Canchola of the same before leaving work. Id. Later that day and after her urgent care visit, Plaintiff faxed and e-mailed Ms. Honrada-Beck and Mr. Canchola a copy of her doctor’s note putting her off work through June 26, 2015. Pham Decl., | 3, Ex. A, 9 18. Plaintiff did not receive a response from either person. /d. On or about Friday, June 26, 2015, Plaintiff followed up with her doctor whom diagnosed her with Chronic Stress Reaction and ordered her to be off work through July 2, 2015. Pham Decl, § 3, Ex. A, § 19. On Monday, June 29, 2015, at 12:04 am. Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Ms. Horada-Beck 4 MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. DO 0 N N BR W N N O N N O N N O N H m e m e m e m p m e m ee e e B N E R O D R E B E E 8 8 » 3 8a a F r » 0 = oo attaching a copy of her doctor’s note which placed her off work through July 2, 2015. Pham Decl., 13, Ex. A, 120. In the e-mail, Plaintiff stated she would return to work at full capacity on July 3, 2015. Again, Plaintiff received no response. Id. On or about July 2, 2015, Plaintiff called Defendants to inquire about her paycheck and again informed them that she would return to work on July 3, 2015. Pham Decl, 3, Ex. A, § 21. Plaintiff also sent an e-mail to Ms. Honrada-Beck regarding the same. Id. The next day, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendants stating her employment was terminated, effective June 23, 2015 even though Plaintiff did not receive her final paycheck until July 9, 2015. Pham Decl., § 3, Ex. A, 11 21-22. B. PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS On June 3, 2016, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against Defendants which contains the following eleven causes. of action(s): (1) Disability Discrimination; (2) Failure to Reasonably Accommodate; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process: (4) Retaliation; (5) Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Retaliation; (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (7) Denial of CFRA Leave; (8) Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2; (9) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (10) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; and (11) Failure to Pay All Wages Upon Separation of Employment. (See Declaration of Cindy Pham (hereinafter “Pham Decl.”), § 3, Exhibit A.) C. DEFENDANTS SUBPOENA SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. AND PLAINTIFF’S EFFORTS TO MEET AND CONFER On or about March 30, 2017, Defendant's counsel, John Valentine, Esq. (“Mr. Valentine”) of the Law Offices of John Valentine, Jr. served upon Plaintiff's counsel, Cindy Pham, Esq. (“Ms. Pham”) of Aegis Law Firm, P.C., a copy of the Subpoena. Pham Decl., q 4, Exhibit B. Prior to issuing the Subpoena, Defendants’ counsel did not request the information sought by the Subpoena directly from Plaintiff; nor did any of Defendants written discovery contain a request for this information. Defendants did not apprise Plaintiff of their intent to subpoena her current employer. Additionally, to date, Defendants have not noticed Plaintiff's deposition. Pham Decl., § 5. -5- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. OO 0 N N nh BR W N = N O N N O N = e m e m e d e m e m p s e e p e On or about April 13, 2017, Ms. Pham issued a letter to Defendants’ counsel via mail and e-mail to: (1) meet and confer on the scope and relevancy of the Subpoena and (2) inquire on the status of service of the Subpoena in order to determine whether Plaintiff should move for a protective order or move to quash in the event either is necessary. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the issue, Mr. Pham specifically requested that Mr. Valentine confirm by noon the following day whether the Subpoena had in fact already been served on See’s Candies. Pham Decl., J 6. On April 14, 2017 at 2:01 p.m., after not receiving a response form Mr. Valentine, Ms. Pham sent another e-mail to Mr. Valentine to inquire on the status of service of the Subpoena. Pham Decl., 7. To date, Ms. Pham has not received a response to her letter or e- mails. Pham Decl., § 8. Thus, Plaintiff is presented with no other choice but to proceed with this Motion. III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. The California Code of Civil Procedure Permits This Court To Issue An Order Quashing The Subpoena Issued By Defendants The Court has the authority to quash or limit subpoenas and protect parties from unreasonable or oppressive intrusions into their right to privacy. Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.1(a) states, in pertinent part: When a subpoena requires the . . . production of books, documents or other things before a court . . . or at the taking of a deposition, the court, upon motion reasonably made by the party . . . may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon such 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 parties . . . from unreasonable or oppressive demands including unreasonable violations of a witness’s or consumer’s right of privacy. (Emphasis added). Code of Civil Procedure § 1985.6(f)(1) provides: Any employee whose employment records are sought by a subpoena duces tecum may, prior to the date for production, bring a motion under Section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena duces tecum. Notice of the bringing of that motion shall be given to the witness and deposition officer at least five days prior to production. (Emphasis added). -6- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. vO 0 N N Wn Bk W N = N N N N N N N N N m e e e e R e s e s e e 0 ~~ AA Wn Bh W N em O L NN S N N R W ND = O Because Defendants’ Subpoena unreasonably intrudes upon Plaintiff's right to privacy as to her employment records with her current employer See’s Candies, this Court has the authority to quash or modify the Subpoena in order to protect Plaintiff's right to privacy. B. The Subpoena Should Be Quashed Because It Violates Plaintiffs Constitutionally Protected Privacy Rights The California Constitution grants all citizens of this state the right pe privacy. Specifically, the California Constitution states, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining, safety, happiness, and privacy. Cal. Const. Art, I, § 1; White v. Davis, 13 Cal. 3d 757 (1975). (Emphasis added). As noted in Bd. of Trustees v. Superior Court, 119 Cal. App. 3d 516, 526-27 (1981), confidential personnel files at a person’s place of work, including employment records, are within a constitutionally protected zone of privacy. Accordingly, any such documents sought must be directly relevant to the case, not merely reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 524-25; see also Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 844 (1978) (Emphasis added). In this sense, employment records are afforded the same privacy protections as medical and psychological records. See Lantz v. Superior Court, 28 Cal. App. 4th 1839 (1994). Because the right to privacy covers employment records, mere speculation as to the possibility that some portion of the records might be relevant to some substantive issues does not suffice. Davis v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1008, 1014, 1017 (1992); Mendez v. Superior Court, 206 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1988); Huelter v. Superior Court, 87 Cal. App. 3d 544, 548-49 (1978); In re Lifschutz, 2 Cal. 3d 415, 435 (1970). Even when such information is directly relevant, it is not automatically discoverable; instead, there must be a “careful balancing” of “compelling public need” for discovery against the “fundamental right of privacy.” Bd. of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal. App. 3d at 525. Considerations should include the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the parties and the trial, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and the ability of the -7- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. - N O N N N O N N O N N N m m o e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e e c e N N Ln hk W N = , O D O R N Y R W NY = O OO 0 N N N hh BR Ww N court to make an alternative order which may grant partial disclosure only in the event that the party seeking the information undertakes certain specified burdens which appear just under the circumstances. Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 658; Pioneer Electronics, Inc. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal. 4th 360, 371 (2007). In this case, the Subpoena seeks Plaintiff's time records and attendance for the period of June 23, 2015 through July 2, 2015. Plaintiff notes that July 23, 2015 was the date she left work early and went fo urgent care whereas July 2, 2015 was the date Plaintiff was placed off work through by her doctor. Plaintiff also notes that she also worked at See’s Candies during the time she worked for Defendants and Defendants were aware of this. However, given the fact that the Subpoena is invasive of Plaintiff’s privacy rights as it seeks her current employment records at See’s Candies, Defendants have a burden of establishing a compelling need for the information sought and have failed to do so. Defendants have not offered any justification as to why they are seeking Plaintiff's time and attendance records for the specified dates. Rather has completely ignored Plaintiff’s inquiries as to the Subpoena. Even assuming that Defendants can show direct relevance (which Plaintiff does not concede), the balance between the right to privacy and need for discovery weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s privacy rights as there is no “compelling public interest” for the information sought by Defendants. On the other hand, disclosure of the information and documentation at Plaintiff’s current employment would severely harm Plaintiff’s right to privacy based simply on Defendants’ speculation of possible relevance. As a result, Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the Subpoena in its entirety. C. Plaintiff Has Not “Waived” Her Right To Privacy By Filing A Lawsuit In trying to obtain an employee’s employment records from a current employer, defendants frequently try to argue that the employee has waived his or her right to privacy by filing a lawsuit. However, it is settled law that a party does not completely waive his or her right to privacy by filing a lawsuit. See Britt, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at 858. Moreover, personnel records may be discoverable, but only if the party seeking these iterns can establish that they are directly relevant to the case, and if the court concludes they are discoverable, after balancing the -8- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. $C 0 N I N Wn Rs W N N N N O R O N O N RN O N mm m e e s e e e e e e 2 N B U8 RB B N R R 8& 8 3% ® 2A a 0 2 0 0 = © need for disclosure against the employee's right to privacy. Bd. of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal. App. 3d at 525; Britt, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at 844; Tylo, supra, 55 Cal. App. 4th at 1379. Therefore Defendants, here, do not have authorization to access any and all documents and/or communications that discuss or relate to Plaintiff’s current employment at Shipco Transport. D. The Information Being Requested is Obtainable Through Less Intrusive Means | Defendants have failed to explore less intrusive means in the obtaining the information sought by the Subpoena. Discovery will not be ordered if the information sought is available “from other sources or through less intrusive means. Allen v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 3d, 447, 449 (1984) (Emphasis added); see Britt, supra, 20 Cal. 3d at 856 [discovery “cannot be pursued by means that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the end can be more ‘narrowly achieved”]. As provided by the Court in Hooser v. Superior Court, 84 Cal. App. 4th 997, 1000, 101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 341, 344 (2000): In determining whether disclosure is required, the court must indulge in a "careful balancing" of the right of a civil litigant to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, and the right of the third parties to maintain reasonable privacy regarding their sensitive personal affairs, on the other. The court must consider the purpose of the information sought, the effect that disclosure will have on the affected persons and parties, the nature of the objections urged by the party resisting disclosure and availability of alternative, less intrusive means for obtaining the requested information. In the case at bar, the information sought is available through less intrusive means. The information sought by the subpoena could have been easily obtained by taking Plaintiff's deposition. However, Defendants have yet to depose Plaintiff in this matter and have not even attempted to notice her deposition prior to issuing the Subpoena. Plaintiff has provided good faith responses to Defendant’s written discovery thus far. To date, Plaintiff has not been notified by Defendant of any issues with her responses. Prior to sending out the Subpoena, Defendants did not attempt at all whatsoever to notify Plaintiff of their intent to serve the Subpoena and did not attempt to obtain the information being sought through less intrusive means. Based on the foregoing, and should the Court find that Defendants are entitled to the information sought, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to make an order for partial 9. MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. © © NN NN un bs W N = N O N RN N O N O N N O N N m e m e m e m e m e m e m e e 0 ~~ O N Wn R A W N = D O N N R W N e s OD disclosure in another form, i.e. written discovery or oral deposition, to obtain the documentation sought by the Subpoena. | Iv. DEFENDANTS AND THEIR COUNSEL SHOULD BE SANCTIONED IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.060.00 FOR FAILING TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEET AN D CONFER PROCESS AND FAILING TO WITHDRAW THE SUBPOENA A. Defendant’s Refusal to Withdraw The Subpoena is Without Substantial Justification This Court has authority pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1987.2 to award reasonable expenses incurred in making or opposing a motion to quash if the Court finds the motion to quash was made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. As provided herein, Plaintiff's counsel has made good faith attempts to meet and confer with Defendant’s counsel in good faith prior to filing the subject Motion. As is made clear in the instant Motion, the Subpoena unreasonably invades Plaintiff's right to privacy, was issued solely to harass Plaintiff and is wholly irrelevant to the issues raised in this case, which renders the Subpoena oppressive. Despite the valid arguments offered by Plaintiff during the meet and confer process, Defendants have refused to withdraw the Subpoena and have forced Plaintiff to incur the time and expense in filing this motion. Defendants and their counsel did not act with substantial justification by failing to withdraw the Subpoena. B. Defendants’ Failed to Participate in the Meet and Confer Process As provided by Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.020: Notwithstanding the outcome of the particular discovery motion, the court shall impose a monetary sanction ordering that any party or attorney who fails to confer as required pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. Defendants completely failed to engage in the meet and confer process with Plaintiff and thereby forcing Plaintiff to proceed with the instant Motion. Defendants mail served Plaintiff with the Subpoena on March 30, 2017. Therefore, the earliest possible date Defendants could serve the custodian of records for See’s Candies would be on April 10, 2017. On or about April -10- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. © © J ON Lt RA W O N = N O N N N N N N DN N m em e m e e e m m e e m e a 0 ~~ O N hh BA W N = Oo O e N Y nn Re W N = O 13, 2017, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendants’ counsel via mail and e-mail to: (1) meet and confer on the scope and relevancy of the Subpoena and (2) inquire on the status of service of the Subpoena in order to determine whether Plaintiff should move for a protective order or move to quash in the event either is necessary. Plaintiff specifically requested that Defendants confirm by noon the following day whether the Subpoena had in fact already been served on See’s Candies. On April 14, 2017 at 2:01 p.m. Plaintiff's counsel sent another letter to Defendant’s counsel to inquire on the status of service of the Subpoena. To date, no response has been provided by Defendants’ counsel. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully requests monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,060.00 to compensate her for the time and expense associated with preparing the instant motion. | V. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion to Quash in its entirety and award Plaintiff with monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,060.00. Dated: April 20, 2017 AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC By Sadak Samuel A. Wong Cindy Pham Attorneys for Plaintiff Frida Fuentes -11- MEMO OF POINTS & AUTH. ISO MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. oO c e 3 A N Un BR W N = DN N N N N N N N N mm e m e m e m e m e m e m e m 0 1 O N Wn BA W N = D D e N N RE W N = o CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE L, the undersigned, 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; am employed with Aegis Law Firm PC and my business address is 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, California 92618. On April 21, 2017, I served the foregoing document entitled: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA TO SEE’S CANDY SHOPS, INC. AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,060.00; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF CINDY PHAM; AND [PROPOSED] ORDER on all the appearing and/or interested parties in this action by placing [_] the original [X] a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: Harry O. Schenk John Valentine, Jr. Beverly Hills Law Building Law Offices of John Valentine, JR. Schenklawfirm@aol.com jvalentine@valentinelawla.com 902124ttorneys for Defendant : G&M Oil Attorney for Defendant: G&M Oil Company, Company, Inc., G&M Oil Co., LLC Inc., G&M Oil Co., LLC [] (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Irvine, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postage cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing this affidavit. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(a); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) (BY OVERNIGHT MAIL) I am personally and readily familiar with the business practice of Aegis Law Firm PC for collection and processing correspondence for overnight delivery, and I caused such document(s) described herein to be deposited for delivery to a facility regularly maintained Federal Express for overnight delivery. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1013(c); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(c).) (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) I caused said document(s) to be served via electronic transmission to the addressee(s) listed above on the date below. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.6(6); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(2)(E); Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)(3).) (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered the foregoing document by hand delivery to the addressed named above. (Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 1011; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 5(b)2)(A).) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 21, 2017, at Irvine, California. Khthyan Alvarez CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
