Motion To Quash Subpoena TmobileMotionCal. Super. - 4th Dist.February 20, 201930-2019-0105 © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 05/27/2020 10:35:00 AM. P366-CU-PA-CJ C - ROA #88 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Natasha Dorfman, Deputy Clerk. Robert L. Reisinger, Esq., Bar No. 156474 Bessie Mafud, Esq., Bar No. 321860 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR One World Trade Center Twenty-Seventh Floor Long Beach, California 90831-2700 (562) 983-2500 Attorneys for Defendants, GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO and JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHO SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ, an individual; Case No. 30-2019-01052366-CU-PA-CIC Plaintiff, Judge Walter Schwarm Dept. C19 VS. NOTICE AND MOTION TO QUASH THE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE & FOR $1,340 IN SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF BESSIE MAFUD GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO, an individual; JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHOSHOW, an individual; and DOES 1-20 Defendants. Filed concurrently with: [Proposed] Order; Separate Statement Date: June 30, 2020 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept.: C19 Reservation ID: 73303206 Trial: August 7, 2020 MSC: November 20, 2020 Complaint filed: February 20, 2019 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 N N e N N N e 1 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O TO THE HONORABLE COURT, PLAINTIFF AND COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 30, 2020 at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter may be heard, in Department C19 of the Orange County Superior Court, located at 700 West Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana, California 92701, Defendant GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO (“Defendant”) will move this Court for an Order Quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to T-Mobile and served by Plaintiff ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”). PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant also requests an Order imposing $1,340 in monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and their counsel of record, Diana Lopez, Esq. of The Lopez Law Firm, APC for the reasonable expenses incurred by Defendant in making this Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2(a). This Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 and is based on the grounds that the Subpoena is overly broad, seeks irrelevant information, and seeks to invade privacy rights of Defendant and other third parties. This Motion will be based upon this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently filed Declaration of Bessie Mafud and attached exhibits, upon all records on file herein, and upon such oral and/or documentary evidence as may be presented at the hearing. Dated: May 27, 2020 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR ERT L. REISINGER BESSIE MAFUD Attorneys for Defendants, GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO and JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHO 2 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IL. INTRODUCTION Defendant GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO (“Defendant”) requests an Order Quashing the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to T-Mobile and served by Plaintiff ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”). Defendant also requests sanctions against Plaintiff and Plaintiff Counsel. This personal injury case arises out of an alleged two-vehicle automobile accident that occurred on January 4, 2018, on the southbound I-55 freeway in the county of Orange, California between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Plaintiff ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO (“Defendant”) caused Plaintiff to suffer sever and significant injuries as a result of the subject motor vehicle collision. Specifically, Plaintiff complains of injuries to her neck, lumbar, traveling pain to her legs, severe headaches, and depression. IL. RELEVANT FACTS A. Plaintiff Served an Improper Subpoena On May 18, 2020, Plaintiff served a Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to T-Mobile (“Subpoena”) seeking any and all records of Defendant’s cellphone use history. (Declaration of Bessie Mafud [“Mafud Dec.”], Ex. A.) The Subpoena is improper because it seeks (1) Defendant’s cellphone records, including cellphone data without any temporal limits; (2) records that are not related to the subject accident; and (3) to invade the privacy of Defendant and third parties who called or texted Defendant. Such evidence is not relevant to this litigation. Further, Plaintiff Counsel has named herself and her law firm as the deposition officer in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.420. B. Defendant Objected to the Subpoena On May 20, 2020, Defendant served her Objection to the Subpoena. (Mafud Dec., Ex. B.) nn 1" 1 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O III. THE COURT HAS AUTHORITY TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA The Court has statutory authority to quash the Subpoena. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, the Court has the power to issue an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or making any other order “to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person.” In addition, Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides authority for the Court to award expenses for reasonable costs including attorney fees. IV. THE MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE GRANTED A. The Subpoena Improperly Names Plaintiff Counsel as the Deposition Officer Plaintiff Counsel has named herself and her law firm, The Lopez Law Firm, APC, as the deposition officer in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.420. Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.420 states in pertinent part that a deposition officer “shall not be financially interested in the action, or a relative or employee of any attorney of the parties.” The Lopez Law Firm, APC, represents Plaintiff. Plaintiff Counsel, an employee of The Lopez Law Firm, APC, has named herself in the Subpoena as the deposition officer. This is in direct violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 2020.420. The Motion should be granted. B. The Subpoena is Vague and Ambiguous The Motion to Quash should be granted because it is vague and ambiguous. (See Deyo v. Kilborne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.) The Subpoena seeks production of “[a]ny and all records that provide [Defendant’s] cellphone use history [...] including but not limited to non-content information [...].” (Mafud Dec., Ex.A.) The Subpoena is vague and ambiguous as to the subject of “non-content information” and the production of “any and all records.” It is unclear as to the type of records Plaintiff is seeking and if it is even related to her claims. C. The Subpoena is Overly Broad The Subpoena is not limited or narrowly tailored to the time of the subject accident and seeks cellphone data that was captured at least two (2) hours before the subject accident and one (1) hour after the subject accident. The subject accident occurred on January 4, 2018 between the hours of 2 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. (Mafud Dec., Ex. C.) The Subpoena seeks Defendant’s cellphone records “for the date of January 04, 2018, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. [...]” (Mafud Dec., Ex. A.) It is unclear how all of the data on Defendant’s cellphone that was captured hours before and after the subject accident is relevant to the January 4, 2018 subject accident that occurred sometime between 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. because such information did not transpire during the subject accident nor is it privy to the subject accident. This means that Subpoena appears to seek all telephone calls, apps, games, social media, and text message records for almost the entire day of when the subject accident occurred no matter how unrelated the information may be. Disclosure of date from hours before the subject accident and after the subject accident could reach back to private communications from the entire day. There is no reason to justify production of cell phone records and data for nearly the entire day of the subject accident without any actual limitation to time surrounding the subject collision. Discovery is improper if it is so broad that it might necessitate production or disclosure of information that would be alien to the subject matter of the action. (City of Los Angeles v. Super. Ct. (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 778, 783.) The at-issue request should be narrowly tailored to the time of the alleged accident and calls related to the subject accident, which occurred on January 4, 2018 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. The Subpoena is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and harassing. The Subpoena is not limited or tailored in any fashion to seeking information about the alleged subject incident. The Motion to Quash should be granted. D. The Subpoena Seeks to Violate Defendant’s Privacy and the Privacy of Third Parties The Motion should be granted as it seeks all cellphone data without a narrowly tailored time limitation and thus seeks production of data for Defendant’s private telephone calls and text messages for nearly the entire day of the subject accident with other third parties. The Subpoena is not limited to the subject accident and thereby seeks irrelevant records and in violation of Defendant’s privacy rights. There is simply no compelling interest justifying the production of these records that trump the privacy rights of Defendant. When a party fails to show that a competing or countervailing privacy or non-privacy interest outweighs the specifically identified privacy interest 3 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O of the person whose records are being sought, then there is a violation of the state constitutional right of privacy. (Hill v. NCAA (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 40.) When there are feasible and effective alternatives to a party’s conduct, which have a lesser impact on privacy interests, that party’s conduct constitutes a violation of the right to privacy. (/d.) When privacy rights are asserted, the standard is heightened. “[W]hen privacy rights are at stake, a different test applies: The information sought must be directly relevant to one of the issues in the action; the prospect that the inquiry might lead to admissible evidence does not suffice.” (Cal. Judges Benchbook: Civil Proceedings, Civil Proceedings (CJER 1994), Discovery, 4.128, at 79, citing Board of Trustees v. Super. Ct. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 516, 525.) Further, “even when discovery of private information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be automatically allowed; there must then be a ‘careful balancing’ of the ‘compelling public 29 need’ for discovery against the ‘fundamental right of privacy.”” (Board of Trustees, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at 525 (emphasis added), quoting City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal.3d 123, 130; Valley Bank of Nevada v. Super. Ct. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 657 [“we indulge in a careful balancing of the right of civil litigants to discover relevant facts, on the one hand, with the right ... to maintain reasonable privacy..., on the other]; White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774-775.) Plaintiff has not established any compelling need for the disclosure of persons who spoke to Defendant before and after the time of the subject accident. There is no reason for the disclosure of text messages Defendant sent or received in the hours before and after the subject accident. The overbroad production of the cellphone data is not essential to the case. The Subpoena must be quashed. E. The Subpoena Will Not Lead to Relevant or Admissible Evidence The Subpoena seeks all of Defendant’s cellphone data. (Mafud Dec., Ex. A.) The Subpoena does not narrowly limit its request to the time of the subject accident. Defendant has not placed her entire cellphone use, past telephone calls, text messages, or other private communications at-issue in this case. Her cellphone message and call history has no relevance in this case. “Discovery may relate to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery, or of any other party to the action.” 4 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS OO 0 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.) The Subpoena does not seek any documents related to Plaintiff’s claim. The Motion to quash should be granted. V. SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2, the imposition of monetary sanctions in favor of Defendant should be granted. As set forth in the attached Declaration of Bessie Mafud, Defendant incurred and will incur $1,340 in costs and fees for this Motion. The Court should impose monetary sanctions against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record to reimburse Defendant for fees and costs incurred with this Motion. VI. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Defendant requests that the Court grant this Motion to Quash the Subpoena issued to T-Mobile and impose sanctions. Dated: May 27, 2020 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR a ya i L. REISINGER BESSIE MAFUD Attorneys for Defendants, GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO and JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHO 5 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d co NN O N Un kr W N = O O X N N N R E W I N D = O DECLARATON OF BESSIE MAFUD I, Bessie Mafud, do hereby state and declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of California, and an associate attorney with the law firm of Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar LLP, counsel of record for Defendant GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO (“Defendant”). 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein, except those that are stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true. If called to do so, I could and would testify competently thereto. 3. This declaration is submitted in support of Defendant’s Motion for an Order to Quash the Subpoena issued by Plaintiff ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ (“Plaintiff”) upon T-Mobile. 4. May 18, 2020, Plaintiff served a Deposition Subpoena for the Production of Business Records (“Subpoena”) to T-Mobile for Defendant’s cellphone records. A true and correct copy of the Subpoena is attached as Exhibit A. 5. On May 20, 2020, Defendant served an Objection to the Subpoena. A true and correct copy of the Objection is attached as Exhibit B. 6. On April 28, 2020, Plaintiff’s deposition was taken in relation to this action. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that the subject accident occurred on January 4, 2018 between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. A true and correct copy of pertinent portions of Plaintiff’s April 28, 2020 deposition is attached as Exhibit C. 7. As a result of this Subpoena, Defendant was forced to file this motion. A total of $1,340 in attorneys’ fees and costs have been incurred or is anticipated to be incurred in relation to the discovery motion. These reasonable and necessary costs approximate as follows: ® The preparation of the moving papers, including the separate statement, the supporting declaration, exhibits, and proposed order for 4.0 hours at a rate of $160 per hour is $640; ® The evaluation of opposing papers and preparation of the reply papers for 1.0 hour is $160; ® The travel, appearance, and argument at the hearing of this Motion for 3.0 hours is $480; and 6 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS OO 0 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N N e m e m e m e m e m e m e m e d c o N N Wn R A W I N D = OO V O X N R W = Oo ® The motion fee of $60. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 27th day of May, 2020, at Long Beach, Californi4. essie Mafud, Declarant 7 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CELLPHONE RECORDS EXHIBIT A - aN Nn tT n n OO ~~ c o O N O O = a o n tT nn © ~ ~ ou o N O O = dN o n FF n n oO I © -_- r e e e = = = = = A N N N N N N A N A SUBP-025 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT EY (Name, State Bar number, and adress): FOR COURT USE ONLY Diana Lopez, SBN 26 - The Lopez Law Firm, APC 2090 N Tustin Ave, Suite 250], Santa Ana Ca 92705 TELEPHONE NO: 714-277-4111 FAX NO. (Optional): 866-662-5705 emai ADDRESS (option): dlopez@lopezlawcorporation.com ATTORNEY FOR (vame): Elizabeth Hernandez SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange erreeranoress: 700 Civic Center Drive West MAILING ADDRESS: crvannziecope: Santa Ana, Ca 92701 sranch name: Central Justice Center PLAINTIFE/ PETITIONER: Elizabeth Hernandez CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT RESPONDENT: Gabriella Nicole Marquecho, et al. 30-2019-01052366 NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1885.3,1985.6) NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE TO (name): Gabriella Nicole Marquecho 1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT REQUESTING PARTY (name): The Lopez Law Firm, APC SEEKS YOUR RECORDS FOR EXAMINATION by the parties to this action on (specify date): June 8, 2020 The records are described in the subpoena directed to witness (specify name and address of person or enlify from whom records are sought): T-Mobile, Compliance Department, 4 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, NJ 07054; (973) 292-8911 (ph) A copy of the subpoena is attached. 2. IF YOU OBJECT to the production of these records, YOU MUST DO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED. IN ITEM a. OR b. BELOW: a. If you are a party to the above-entitled action, you must file a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena and give notice of that motion fo the witness and the deposition officer named in the subpoena at least five days before the date set for production of the records. b. If you are not a party to this action, you must serve on the requesting party and on the witness, before the date set for production of the records, a written objection that states the specific grounds on which production of such records should be prohibited. You may use the form below to object and state the grounds for your objection. You must complete the Proof of Service on the reverse side indicating whether you personally served or mailed the objection. The objection should not be filed with the court. WARNING: IF YOUR OBJECTION IS NOT RECEIVED BEFORE THE DATE SPECIFIED IN ITEM 1, YOUR RECORDS MAY BE PRODUCED AND MAY BE AVAILABLE TO ALL PARTIES. 3. YOU OR YOUR ATTORNEY MAY CONTACT THE UNDERSIGNED to determine whether an agreement can be reached in writing to cancel or limit the scope of the subpoena. If no such agreement is reached, and if you are not oth epresented by an attorney in this action, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR RIG . Date: 05/18/2020 Diana Lopez a (TPE ORIPRINE HANEY (sioNATUREOF [| reasenip 7] ATTORNEY) OBJECTION BY NON-PARTY TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS 1. [] object to the production of all of my records specified in the subpoena. 21 object only to the production of the following specified records: 3. The specific grounds for my objection are as follows: Date: (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE) ! {Proof of service on reverse) Page of2 Sociol Cont of Gators NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION Cote af Eh rrocans, 2020.010-2020.510 SUBP-025 [Rev. January 1, 2008] www. courtinfo.ca.gov SUBP-025 CASE NUMBER: PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Elizabeth Hernandez 30-2019-01052366 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Gabriella Nicole Marquecho, et al. PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION {Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985.3,1985.6) [1 Personal Service [__] Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. 1served a copy of the Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection as follows (check either a or b): a. Personal service. | personally delivered the Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection as follows: (1) Name of person served: Robert L. Reisinger, Esq. (3) Date served: 05/18/2020 (2) Address where served: (4) Time served: 2} ax» (vor Cp One World Trade Center, 27th Floor, Long Beach, CA 9083 b. [__] Mail. | deposited the Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (1) Name of person served: (3) Date of mailing: (2) Address: (4) Place of mailing (city and state): (5) | am a resident of or employed in the county where the Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection was mailed. ¢. My residence or business address is (specify): 17128 Colima Road, Ste 439, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 d. My phone number is (specify): 213-620-7081 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true apd correct. Date: 05/18/2020 Vy | Joe Baray ~ Ly (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED} J (SIGNATURE OF PERS! 0 PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS {Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1985.3,1985.6) [1 Personal Service [__] Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. | served a copy of the Objection to Production of Records as follows (complete either a or b): a. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY (1) [LT Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection fo Production of Records as follows: {i) Name of person served: (iii) Date served: (ily Address where served: (iv) Time served: (2) [1 mail. | deposited the Objection to Production of Records in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (iy Name of person served: (iii) Date of mailing: (if) Address: (iv) Place of mailing (city and state): {v) 1 am a resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed. b. ON THE WITNESS (1) [___] Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection fo Production of Records as follows: (i) Name of person served: {iii} Date served: (ii) Address where served: (iv) Time served: (2) [_] Mail. | deposited the Objection to Production of Records in the United States mail, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (i) Name of person served: (iii) Date of mailing: (ii) Address: (iv) Place of mailing (city and state): {v} 1 am a resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed. 3. My residence or business address is (specify): 4. My phone number is (specify): I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: ) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) BUEF-028 [Fui.c/armany 1.2000} NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION Page 20f 2 SUBP-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY Diana Lopez, SBN 267337 The Lopez Law Firm, APC 2090 N Tustin Ave, Suite 250J, Santa Ana Ca 92705 TELEPHONE NO: 714-277-4111 FAX NO. (Optional): 866-662-5705 E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): diopez@iopezlawcorporation.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Elizabeth Hernandez SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Orange STREET ADDRESS: 700 Civic Center Drive West MAILING ADDRESS: CITY AND ZIP CODE:Santa Ana, Ca 92701 BRANCH Name:Central Justice Center PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER: Elizabeth Hernandez DEFENDANT! RESPONDENT: Gabriella Marquecho, et al. CASE NUMBER: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA 30-2019-01052366 FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): T-Mobile, Compliance Department, 4 Sylvan Way, Parsipanny, NJ 07054; 973-292-8911 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name of deposition officer). Diana Lopez, The Lopez Law Firm, APC On (date) : June 8, 2020 At (time): 10:00am Location (address). 2080 N Tustin Ave, Suite 250J, Santa Ana Ca 92705 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 cuter envelope or wrapper, sealed, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1. b. [1 by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 fo 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). ¢. [__] 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 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. 3. The records to be produced are described as follows (if efecfronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): [%7] 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-F® OBEY. Date issued: 05/18/2020 Diana lopez » {TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON TESUING SUBPOENA) Attorney (TITLE) (Proof of service on reverse) Page 10f 2 Fi Adopted for Mandatory U iil i a ere DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION ar sae: Sat Judicial Council of California SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012} OF BUSINESS RECORDS Www. CoUrs.ca.gov ATTACHMENT 3 Name: Gabriella Nicole Marquecho-Gabourie Tel n0:657-720-8254 Any and all records that provide the cellphone use history for Gabriella Nicole Marquecho for cell number 657-720-8254 for the date of January 04, 2018, between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., including but not limited to non-content information of incoming and outgoing voice calls, incoming or outgoing text messages or data sessions, such as start time, duration, numbers called or received or texted. SUBP-010 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Elizabeth Hemandez CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Gabrielta Marquecho, ef al. BO _ “1514 - oO} hd 5 Ly 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). Robert L. Reisinger, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Gabriella N. Marquecho-Gabourie b. Address where served: One World Trade Center, 27th Floor, Long Beach, CA 90831 ¢. Date of delivery: May 18, 2020 d. Time of delivery: XL! 0c gr Caporov) e. (1) [_] Witness fees were paid. f Feeforservice:................ $ 0.00 2. received this subpoena for service on (date). May 18, 2020 3. Person serving: a. [ %] Not a registered California process server. b. [_] California sheriff or marshal, c. {1 Registered California process server. . [1 Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server. d e. {__1 Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b). f. [1 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: Joe Baray, Baray Litigation Services 17128 Colima Road, Ste. 439 Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 t 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: May 18, 2020 Date: WW Lug SEE Seni” { SUBP-010 (Rev. January 1, 2012] DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS Page 2of 2 EXHIBIT B - aN Nn tT n n OO ~~ c o O N O O = a o n tT nn © ~ ~ ou o N O O = dN o n FF n n oO I © -_- r e e e = = = = = A N N N N N N A N A © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N E m e m e m e m e m e m e m pe pe co NN O N Un kr W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O Robert L. Reisinger, Esq., Bar No. 156474 Edye A. Hill, Esq., Bar No. 223377 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR One World Trade Center Twenty-Seventh Floor Long Beach, California 90831-2700 (562) 983-2500 Attorneys for Defendants, GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO and JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHOSHOW SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ, an individual; Case No. 30-2019-01052366-CU-PA-CJC ) ) Plaintiff, ) Judge Walter Schwarm ) Dept. C19 VS. ) ) DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO, an ) DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE individual; JEANA NICOLE ) PRODUCTION OF RECORDS FROM MARQUECHOSHOW, an individual; and DOES ) T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE 1-20 DEPARTMENT Defendants. ) Trial: August 7, 2020 MSC: June 26, 2020 TO THE DEPONENT, ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO and JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHOSHOW (“Defendant”) objects to the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records issued to T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT for document production on June 8, 2020 based on the following grounds: Objection. The requests for production and inspection are overly broad and unduly burdensome as to time and scope. The subpoena is vague and over broad as to "all records". The requests are not limited to narrowly tailored time of the subject accident and seeks production of 1 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT © 0 NN O N Ln BA W N N N N N N N N N N E m e m e m e m e m e m e m pe pe co NN O N Un kr W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O records four (4) hours before and after the subject accident. The requests are vague and ambiguous as to the subject of any data. The requests seek irrelevant documents including applications, contracts, service agreements, and texts messages. The requests are not reasonably calculated to lead, to the discovery of admissible evidence and seeks information that is irrelevant to the subject matter of this litigation. The requests seek information in violation of Defendant’s right of privacy and the right of privacy of third parties. The requests seek production of records and data that is irrelevant to issues of the case. T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT IS HEREBY INSTRUCTED NOT TO PRODUCE ANY RECORDS IN RESPONSE TO THE DEFECTIVE SUBPOENA. Dated: May 21, 2020 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR BY: ROBERT L. REISINGER EDYE A. HILL Attorneys for Defendants, GABRIELLA NICOLE MARQUECHO and JEANA NICOLE MARQUECHOSHOW 2 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT OO 0 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N N E m e m e m e m e m e m e m pe pe co NN O N Un kr W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O PROOF OF SERVICE HERNANDEZ vs. MARQUECHO 25619-042 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I am employed in the aforesaid county; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is: One World Trade Center, Twenty-Seventh Floor, Long Beach, California 90831-2700 On May 21, 2020, I served the within: DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT on the interested parties in said action as follows: _X ONLY BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) Only by e-mailing the document(s) to the persons at the e-mail address(es). Pursuant to California Rule of Court, Emergency Rule 12, effective April 17, 2020, during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, this office will use electronic mail for service purposes to the following: Deponent T-Mobile Compliance Department 4 Sylvan Way Parsippany, NJ 07054 (973) 292-8911 lerinbound @t-mobile.com Counsel for Plaintiff Diana Lopez, Esq. THE LOPEZ LAW FIRM, APC 2090 N. Tustin Ave., Ste. 160 Santa Ana, California 92705 Tel: (714) 277-4111 Fax: (866) 662-5705 dlopez@Ilopezlawcorporation.com ana@]Jopezlawcorporation.com _X (BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collecting and processing of documents and correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, on the above date the envelope was sealed and placed for collection and mailing following the ordinary business practices of our office. This results in the envelope being delivered to the United States Postal Service in Long Beach, California, that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid to the following: Copy Service: Baray Litigation Service 17128 Colima Road No. 439 Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 3 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT OO 0 9 O N Un BA W N N N N N N N N N N E m e m e m e m e m e m e m pe pe co NN O N Un kr W N = O O 0 0 N N N R E W I N D = O Executed on May 20, 2020 at Long Beach, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Lisa Seals Lisa Seals 4 OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS FROM T-MOBILE COMPLIANCE DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT C - AN nn tT vn oO ~~ o o O&O je) - - - oN - on - t+ - wv - \O - ~ - ee] - AN - S aN - oN N aN on oN
