Motion_to_quashMotionCal. Super. - 2nd Dist.January 17, 2018Electronical OO 00 9 O N UB A W N N N N N DN N D R N N = = o m b a a e m pe a e a p a e a XO NN O N nh A W N E O VW N N N RE W R N o o FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 01/14/2019 12:13 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by K. Hung,Dep{ Lee C. Cheng (CA Bar No. 191380) The Webb Law Firm One Gateway Center 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd., Ste. 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 471-8815 Fax: (412) 471-4094 Thomas Gourde (CA Bar No. 150483) RAY & GOURDE, LLP 111 Pacifica, Suite 120 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 825-6525 Fax: (949) 825-6544 Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision (also erroneously sued as dba IQ Laser Vision) SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CHI HUNG HO dba KAR YUNG LAU, an Case No. BC 689872 individual, Honorable Judge Teresa A. Beaudet Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA SEEKING VS. PRODUCTION OF RECORDS OF DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN (ALSO DR. ROBERT LIN, also erroneously sued as ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS DBA IQ dba IQ LASER VISION, an individual; and LASER VISION), OR IN THE DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, ALTERNATIVE, LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE SUBPOENA; DECLARATION Defendants. OF THOMAS L. GOURDE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,612.50 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, C.E. KIMBERLY LIND Hearing Date: April 18, 2019 Hearing Time: 8:30 am Hearing Dept.: 50 RESERVATION NO. 140784311664 Trial Date: None set 1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 ty Clerk NO O0 0 NN O N Wn D W RN ) em 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO THE COURT, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES HEREIN, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on April 18,2019 at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as this matter can be heard in Department 50 of the above-entitled Court, located at 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, Defendant Dr. Robert Lin, also erroneously sued as dba IQ Laser Vision (hereinafter “Defendant Dr. Lin”) will and does move this Court for an order quashing a subpoena issued to Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook Subpoena”) by Plaintiff Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau (“Plaintiff”) and for monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and his attorney of record, C.E. Kimberly Lind. This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §81987.1, 1987.2(a) and 2017.010; California Constitution, Art. 1, §1 and pertinent case law on the grounds that there is good cause to quash the Facebook Subpoena since the subpoena’s request for production is defective, overbroad, not properly limited as to time, and attempts to obtain records invasive of third parties’ right to privacy by seeking to obtain personal and private records from Facebook, to the extent such records exist. This motion is based upon this notice of motion, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the declaration of Thomas L. Gourde, all pleadings, records and files herein, and upon such other and further oral and documentary evidence as may be introduced at the time of the hearing of this motion. WHEREFORE, Defendant Dr. Lin respectfully requests that this Court issue an order: 1. Quashing the subpoena or limiting the production of records; and 2. For monetary sanctions of $1,612.50 against Plaintiff Lau and his attorney of record, C.E. Kimberly Lind. 2 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 OO 0 0 AA NN D W N N N N N = m m e d pe a e m e a e a p a Date: January 14, 2019 « <7 yA 7 T Lows { Dre Thomas L. Gourde Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Robert Lin erroneously sued as dba IQ Laser Vision 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 2 also oO 0 N N O N N W N N N N N N N N R m m o m km em o m em e m p a e l 0 N A R W N O V N N N AN W N = oO Memorandum and Points of Authorities IL. Introduction Plaintiff Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau (“Plaintiff”) filed the present civil action on January 17, 2018, naming as Defendant Dr. Lin “dba IQ Laser Vision” and served the Complaint on Defendant Dr. Lin on February 1, 2018. After the parties stipulated to allow Defendant Dr. Lin an extension to respond to the Complaint, Defendant Dr. Lin, through counsel, met and conferred with Plaintiff's counsel about inadequacies with Plaintiff's Complaint and the need for it to be amended to correct the deficiencies. Plaintiff and his counsel ultimately would not make any amendment to the Complaint and so on March 20, 2018, counsel! for Defendant Dr. Lin, who was also being erroneously sued as “dba IQ Laser Vision,” filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. In his demurrer, Defendant Dr. Lin specifically noted that he was responding on his own behalf as Plaintiff had also erroneously sued him as doing business under a fictitious business name. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde). The demurrer was heard on September 21, 2018. Although Plaintiff had only filed his Complaint in J anuary 2018 and served it on Defendant Dr. Lin on February 1, 2018, Plaintiff and his counsel propounded substantial written discovery on Defendant Dr. Lin on February 14, 2018. Defendant Dr. Lin responded to this discovery on March 28, 2018 and noted in his responses that he does not do business as “IQ Laser Vision” as that is a dba of a different entity, consequently, Plaintiff was again on notice that he had misnamed Defendant Dr. Lin as a party. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde). Despite being on notice of his misnaming of Defendant Dr. Lin as doing business under a dba, on April 6, 2018, Plaintiff issued a subpoena for the production of records from Facebook, Inc. asking for records of Defendant Dr. Lin dba IQ Laser Vision. Defendant Dr. Lin objected to that subpoena as being deficient, overbroad and it sought confidential information and irrelevant material. (Attached to the Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct 4 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 0 NN AN WU A W O N ) em 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 copy of this subpoena). Defendant Dr. Lin subsequently filed a motion to quash that subpoena. Judge Beaudet requested an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC), which proceeded on August 15,2018. At that time, Judge Beaudet suggested that the scope, time span and nature of the requests for production attached to the subpoena should be narrowed and made more relative to Plaintiff's case, and not be so overbroad or over encompassing, or withdrawn. Defendant Dr. Lin's counsel followed up on that IDC with an email to Plaintiff's counsel reiterating what Judge Beaudet advised regarding the subpoena and requested that Plaintiff's counsel withdraw the subpoena or amend it, so it would be narrowed. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde and Exhibit "B." atrue and correct copy of his email"). Counsel for Plaintiff did not respond to counsel for Defendant Dr. Lin's email nor did Plaintiff's counsel withdraw the subpoena. Counsel for Deefindait Dr. Lin continued to follow up by email requesting a response, but never received one. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde). IL. Relevant Facts Months later, instead of modifying the subpoena or notifying counsel for Defendants of its formal withdrawal, on or about December 4, 2018, Plaintiff served a new subpoena on Facebook, Inc. seeking numerous records. (Attached to the Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's subpoena to Facebook, Inc.). Similar to its prior defect, Plaintiff's subpoena seeks Facebook records not just from “Dr. Lin” as an individual, but separate records of pages from “IQ Laser--@IQLaser Vision” and “IQ Laser--@iqlaser.” As Plaintiff knows, or should know, these inconsistent references to the producing party make this subpoena defective, particularly since it was not served on the entity that actually does business as IQ Laser Vision. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde). Following receipt of this subpoena and notice to consumer, counsel for Defendant Dr. Lin sent an email to Plaintiff's counsel requesting the parties meet and confer regarding the subpoena. 5 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 0 NN A N Un B W R 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (Attached to the Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s letter to Plaintiff's counsel). Counsel for Defendant sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel to discuss defects in the subpoena. However, counsel for Defendant did not get a response from counsel for Plaintiff regarding the deficiencies with the subpoena. Consequently, counsel for Defendant prepared and sent counsel for Plaintiff an objection to the subpoena. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde and Exhibit "E," a true and correct copy of Defendant's objection.). Defendant's counsel thereafter followed up with counsel for Plaintiff on December 26, 2018 by email, but again did not receive a response. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde and Exhibit "F," a true and correct copy of Defendant's email). Consequently, Defendant Dr. Lin was left with no option but to file this motion to quash and request monetary sanctions against Plaintiff Lau and his counsel, Ms. Lind due to their abuse of the discovery process. II. Legal Authority A. Plaintiffs Subpoena is Objectionable Under the Discovery Statutes Civil Discovery is generally permissive. Documents are discoverable if they are relevant or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and not privileged. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2017.010). There are, however, limits on what is discoverable. First, discovery is proper only if it relates to “the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or of any other party to the action.” (Id.). Moreover, the information sought must be 1) not privileged, 2) relevant to the subject matter of the action, and 3) either itself admissible or reasonable calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2017.010). Second, “[w]hen the right to discovery conflicts with a privileged right, the court is require to carefully balance the right of privacy with the need for discovery.” (Harris v. Sup. Ct., (1992) 3 6 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 r d 00 NN O N Un A W N 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cal. App.4th 661, 665, citing Valley Bank of Nevada v. Sup. Ct, (1975) 15 Cal.3d 652, 656; see also Moskogitz v. Sup. Ct. (1982) 137 Cal.App. 3d 313, 316). Article I, section 1 of the California Constitution provides in pertinent part that all people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable ri ghts, among which is pursuing and obtaining privacy. Even before this Constitutional projection was adopted in 1974, the California Supreme Court recognized that certain personal matters fell within a zone of privacy. (See Davis v. Sup. Ct., (1992) 7 Cal. App.4th 1008, 1013-1014, citing In re Lifeschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 431-432). The Davis court ruled that enactment of Article 1 of the California Constitution indicates the intent to expand the right of privacy previously recognized by various court decisions. (Davis, 7 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1013-1014). The constitutional privilege operates even where a statutory privilege does not protect the matter in question. (Davis, 7 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1013-1014; Valley Bank of Nevada, 15 Cal.3d at p. 656). Indeed, “[o]ne court has treated it as independent of a related statutory privilege.” (Davis, 7 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1013-1014, citing Heda v. Sup. Ct., (1990) 225 Cal. App.3d 525, 528, fn. 1). In the Heda case, the Court expressly bypassed an opportunity to apply and construe the narrower statutory physician-client privileged and an exception to it, and instead determined the constitutional issue. Thus, constitutional provision is self-executing and needs no legislation to create a legal and enforceable right of privacy for every California. (Davis, 7 Cal. App.4th at p. 1014). First, Plaintiff’s subpoena to Facebook is technically defective because it seeks records related it seeks records related to Dr. Lin, individually while at the same time seeking records from "IQ Laser Vision." Plaintiff’s complaint names as a Defendant “Dr. Lin dba IQ Laser Vision.” Both Dr. Lin and IQ Laser Vision (a dba of Vision Institute of Southern California) are separate Defendants, but Plaintiff's subpoena lumps them together as if IQ Laser Vision is simply 7 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 C0 N A N DN W R N 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a dba of Dr. Lin rather than Vision Institute of Southern California--making the subpoena defective. Second, the subpoena issued by Plaintiff is overbroad, is not limited in time and seeks information that is privileged and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The subpoena seeks "all" posts by Dr. Lin and IQ Laser that mentions Plaintiff--and such request are overbroad as time. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde). In light of the broad definition of Documents, which includes, for example “exemplars” and "posts," these requests — and others — encompass irrelevant subject matter even if they were to be limited to a relevant timeframe. Plaintiff's pursuit of this information is an invasion of privacy and seeks information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Hence, Plaintiff’s subpoena should be quashed or limited as proposed by Defendant Dr. Lin. Therefore, the Court must weigh the need for discovery against the interest. When the Court does so and grants Defendant Dr. Lin’s motion, it should also award Defendant Dr. Lin reasonable attorney fees and costs in having to bring the instant motion. IV. Defendant is Entitled to Sanctions Against Plaintiff Lau and His Attorney of Record, C.E. Kimberly Lind in the Amount of $1,612.50 “The court may order the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s expense, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred on the motion to quash, if it finds that the motion was “made or opposed in bad faith or without substantial justification or that one or more of the requirements of the subpoena was oppressive. [Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, p. 8E-70, 98:598 citing to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 1987.2(a); Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts (2014) 230 Cal. App.4" 35, 41 and Evilsizor v. Sweeney (2014) 230 Cal. App.4™ 1304, 1311 1. In the instant case, counsel for Defendant Dr. Lin engaged in meet and confer efforts with counsel for Plaintiff in regards to limiting the language of the subpoena. Despite the meritorious 8 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 N N N AN nh D A W N em 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 oA 28 position that some of the documents requested are not discoverable, counsel for Plaintiff has not offered to withdraw or even limit the scope of the subpoena for records from Facebook, necessitating this motion. The motion should be granted and sanctions awarded to Defendant Dr. Lin. Accordingly, Defendant Dr. Lin is entitled to sanctions of $1,612.50 against Plaintiff Lau and his attorney of record, C.E. Kimberly Lind, for expenses incurred in connection with this motion. (See Declaration of Thomas L. Gourde). V. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Dr. Lin respectfully requests that this Court grant the motion or in the alternative, if the Court determines the need for the requested discovery outweighs Defendant Dr. Lin’s privacy right, then Defendant Dr. Lin requests that the Court limit the production. Furthermore, Defendant Dr. Lin requests that the Court award Defendant monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,612.50 against Plaintiff Lau and his attorney of record, C.E. Kimberly Lind. Date: January 14, 2019 HAV pt / Thomas Gourde Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Robert Lin, also erroneously sued as dba IQ Laser Vision 9 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 DECLARATION C 0 3 O N Wn D W N mm 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. GOURDE [, Thomas L. Gourde, declare and state as follows: 1. I'am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California. I am partner with Ray & Gourde, LLP and attorney for Defendant. in the above-referenced matter. The matters stated herein are made on my own knowledge, except for those stated to be based on information and belief. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. 2, Plaintiff Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau (“Plaintiff”) filed the present civil action on January 17, 2018, naming as Defendant Dr. Lin “dba IQ Laser Vision” and was served the Complaint on Defendant Dr. Lin on February 1, 2018. After my co-counsel and I stipulated with Plaintiff’s counsel to allow Defendant Dr. Lin an extension of time to respond to the Complaint, my co-counsel met and conferred with Plaintiffs counsel about inadequacies with Plaintiff's Complaint and the need for it to be amended to correct the deficiencies. Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel ultimately would not make any amendment to the Complaint and then on March 20, 2018, my firm and co-counsel filed a demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint, which was heard on September 21,2018. 3. Although Plaintiff had only filed his Complaint in January 2018 and served it on my client on February 1, 2018, Plaintiff and his counsel propounded substantial written discovery on Defendant Dr. Lin on February 14, 2018. Defendant Dr. Lin responded to this discovery on March 28, 2018 and noted in his responses that he does not do business as “IQ Laser Vision” as that is a dba of a different entity, consequently, Plaintiff was on notice that he had misnamed Defendant Dr. Lin as a party doing business through a separate fictitious business name. 4. On or about April 6, 2018, Plaintiff served a subpoena on Facebook, Inc. seeking records dating from January 1, 2012 to the present for Dr. Lin “dba IQ Laser Vision”. Attached as 10 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 0 NN O N nh B R E W ND B D 0 DN N N N O N N / m e m e m e m e m p m e m e a p a XX N S B R A W N A O 0 N N R W O N O— = O O Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s subpoena to Facebook, Inc., as it was served on counsel for Dr. Lin. Plaintiff separately states in the definition section of the subpoena that Plaintiff wants Facebook records not just from “Dr. Robert Lin” as an individual, but separate Facebook records from “IQ Laser--@IQLaser Vision” and “IQ Laser--@iqlaser.” The inconsistent references to the producing party made this subpoena defective, particularly since it was not served on the entity that actually does business as IQ Laser Vision. 5. Defendant Dr. Lin subsequently filed a motion to quash that subpoena. Judge Beaudet requested an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC), which proceeded on August 15, 2018. At that time, Judge Beaudet suggested that the scope, time span and nature of the requests for production attached to the subpoena should be narrowed and made more relative to Plaintiff's case, and not be so overbroad or over encompassing, or withdrawn. I followed up on that IDC with an email to Plaintiff's counsel reiterating what Judge Beaudet advised regarding the subpoena and requested that Plaintiff's counsel withdraw the subpoena or amend it, so it would be narrowed. (Attached as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of my email). Counsel for Plaintiff did not respond to my email nor did Plaintiff's counsel withdraw the subpoena. I continued to follow up by email requesting a response, but never received one. 6. Months later, instead of modifying the subpoena or notifying my office or my co- counsel of its formal withdrawal, on or about December 4, 201 8, Plaintiff served a new subpoena on Facebook, Inc. seeking numerus records. (Attached as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's subpoena to Facebook, Inc.). Similar to its prior defect, Plaintiff's subpoena seeks Facebook records not just from “Dr. Lin” as an individual, but separate records of pages from “IQ Laser--@IQLaser Vision” and “IQ Laser--@jiqlaser.” As Plaintiff knows, or should know, these inconsistent references to the producing party make this subpoena defective, particularly since it was not served on the entity that actually does business as IQ Laser Vision. 11 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 © N A N B W 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 28 Is Following receipt of this subpoena and notice to consumer, I sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting the parties meet and confer regarding the subpoena. (Attached as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of my to Plaintiff's counsel). I sought to meet and confer with Plaintiff's counsel to discuss defects in the subpoena. However, I did not get a response from counsel for Plaintiff regarding the deficiencies with the subpoena. Consequently, I prepared and sent counsel for Plaintiff an objection to the subpoena. (Attached as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct copy of Defendant's objection.). I thereafter followed up with counsel for Plaintiff on December 26, 2018 by email, but again did not receive a response. (Attached as Exhibit "F" is a true and correct copy of my associate's email). 8. ‘Plaintiff’s subpoena to Facebook is technically defective because it seeks records related it seeks records related to Dr. Lin, individually while at the same time seeking records from "IQ Laser Vision." Plaintiff's complaint names as a Defendant “Dr. Lin dba IQ Laser Vision.” Both Dr. Lin and IQ Laser Vision (a dba of Vision Institute of Southern California) are separate Defendants, but Plaintiff's subpoena lumps them together as if IQ Laser Vision is simply a dba of Dr. Lin rather than Vision Institute of Southern California--making the subpoena defective. 9. Second, the subpoena issued by Plaintiff is overbroad, is not limited in time and seeks information that is privileged and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The subpoena seeks "all" posts by Dr. Lin and 1Q Laser that mentions Plaintiff--and such request are overbroad as time. In light of the broad definition of Documents, which includes, for example “exemplars” and "posts," these requests — and others — encompass irrelevant subject matter even if they were to be limited to a relevant timeframe. 10. Plaintiff's pursuit of this information is an invasion of privacy and seeks information not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Hence, Plaintiff's subpoena should be quashed or limited as proposed by Defendant Dr. Lin. Therefore, the Court must weigh the need 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 pk . Oo 0 N N N W y W N N N B R O N B N N R ) m a m m m e m p m ea pe d e m pe e for discovery against the interest. When the Court does so and grants Defendant Dr. Lin’s motion, it should also award Defendant Dr. Lin reasonable attorney fees and costs in having to bring the instant motion. 11. Ittook counsel for Dr. Lin approximately three (3.5) hours of our time to prepare this motion to quash Defendant’s subpoena, and we anticipate one (1.0) hour of travel and appearance time at the hearing of this motion. The time in the above estimate is billed at the reasonable fee of $345.00 per hour; therefore, attorneys’ fees (four hours x $345.00) and costs (the filing fee is $60.00) equal the amount of $1,612.50, which is requested from Plaintiff Lau and his attorney, C.E. Kimberly Lind, for their failure to amend the scope of the subpoena. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14 day of January, 2019, at Irvine, California. hense] heals Thomas L. Gourde, “Declarant 13 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 EXHIBIT "A" wT 1 T ANS WL Legal Services Titan Legal Services, Inc. 19700 Vermont Avenue, Suite 225 Torrance, CA 90502 Phone: (310) 464-8655 Fax: (310) 464-8654 E-mail: cs@titanlegalservices.com ORDER FORM FOR DUPLICATE COPY OF SUBPOENAED RECORDS Date: April 4, 2018 Ray & Gourde, LLP Thomas Gourde, Esq. 111 Pacifica, Suite 120 irvine, CA 92618 Dear Opposing Counsel: Enclosed for your records are copies of the deposition subpoena(s) we have issued on behalf of our client regarding the following case: Case Number: BC689872 Case Name: Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau Dr. Robert Lin dba 1Q Laser Vision Records of: Dr. Lin dba IQ Laser Vision A record search will be conducted at the following locations: Reference Send Copies? Number Custodian Location Yes SU298875-01 KMRB 1430 J Check the Yes box for each location if your office wishes to obtain copies of the records copied from the custodian(s). Sign and send the completed form back to us at the Titan E-mail, Fax, or mailing address listed above. You will be billed a $50.00 Library Basic Charge for each custodian location, plus $.25 per page for printed hard-copies to be delivered to your office OR $0.20 per page for PDF copies of the documents. Date: _____ Signature: Print Name: E-Mail: Phone: NOTE: Do you wish to receive copies of any Certificates of No Records if obtained? No **If nothing is marked you will be charged $50.00 for the CNR. Check the format of how you wish the records to be delivered to your office: Hard-Copies PDF copies (**must include E-mail address) Orders: SU292875-01/Cprasfes SUBP-025 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq., SBN 275635 KO Legal, Inc. 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 950802 TELEPHONENC.: (B62) 628-8548 FaxNo: (714) 242-1580 EMAL ADDRESS: kim@ko-legal.com ATTORNEY FOR (Neme): Plaintiffs, Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES sTReeTADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS; cmyanpzpcobe: Los Angeles 90012 BRANCHNAVE: Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Chi Hung Ho dba Rar Yung Lau CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Dx. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision RC689872 NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1935.3, 1985.6} NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE TO (name): Dx. Lin dba IQ Laser Vision 1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT REQUESTING PARTY (name): Plaintiffs, Chi Hung He dba Kar Yung Lau SEEKS YOUR RECORDS FOR EXAMINATION by the parties to this action on (specify date): April 26, 2018 The records are described in the subpoena directed to withess (specify name, address of person or entity from whom records are sought): Facebook, Inc. 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 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 [TEM a. OR b. BELOW: a. Ifyou are a party to the above-entiltled 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 to the witness and the deposition officer named in the subpoena at least five days before the date set for the production of the records. b. Ifyou 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, 2 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 yau personally served or mailed the objection. The cbjection 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 otherwise represented by an attorney in this action, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS OF PRIVACY. Date: april 6, 2018 C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq. Pp /s/ c.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq. (FERPA BANE) (SIGNATURE orf] REQUESTING PARTY ATTORNEY OBJECTION BY NON-PARTY TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS 1. C1 1 object to the production of alt of my records specified in the subpoena. 2. [1 | 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) {See next page for proof of service) Page {of 2 Emi Austad fer Mandatory Lisk NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION es ng Judicial Council of California SUBP.025 [Rev, January 1, 2008] 2020.010-2020.510 va, TristarSoltware. com Orders: §11289108-01/CPROOF1S i SUBP-025 PLANTIFFPETINONSR: Chl Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau CASE NUMBER: | DEFENDANTRESPONDENT: Dx. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision BC&89872 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.6) Personal Service Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 vears of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. Iserved a copy of the Notice fo Consumer or Employee and Objection as follows (check either a or bj: a. Personal service. | personally delivered the Notice fo Consumer or Employee and Objection as foliows: (1) Name of person served: Thomas Gourde, Esq, (3) Date served: 04/06/2018 (2) Address: Ray & Gourde, LLP, 111 Pacifica, Suite 120, Irvine, CA 92618 {4) Time served: b. C] Maik | 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: (6) 1 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): 19700 Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 20502 d. My phone number is (Specify): {310) 464-8655 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 04/06/2018 Gustavo Tamayo p> No x cari f tl” (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHC SERVED) § {SIGNATURE OF PEISON WHO SERVED) PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS {Code of Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1 985.6) Personal Service 1 Mail 1. Atthe time of service [ was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. Iserved a copy of the Objection to Production of Records as fallow (complete either a or b): 2. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY (0) [_] Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: (i) Name of person served: (iii) Date served: (ii) 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 pestage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (H Name of person served; (ili) Date of mailing: (i) Address: (iv) Place of mailing (cify and state: (v) [am resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed. b. ON THE WITNESS: 1) [1] Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: ® Name of person served: (iy Date served: {fi} Address where served: (iv) Time served: 2 CC] 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 folfows: (iy Name of person served: (i) Date of mailing: (i) 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): [ 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) Page 2 of 2 SE2(a)(15.5)[Rev. January 1, 2008] NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION are. cn PLANTFEPETTIONER: Chi Hung Ho dba Karz Yung Lau CASE NUMBER: TRE DEFENDANTRESPONDENT: DI. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision BC689872 | PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.6) C1] Personal Service Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. I'served a copy of the Notice fo Consumer or Employee and Objection as foliows (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: (3) Date served: (2) Address: (4) Time served: b. Mail. | deposited the Nofice to Consumer or Employee and Objection in the United States mall, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (1) Name of person served: Lee GC. Cheng, Esq. (2) Date of mailing: 04/06/2018 (2) Address: The Webb Law Firm, 1 Gateway Ctr, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd, Ste, 1200, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4) Place of maifing: Torrance, CA (5) lam a resident of or employed in the county where the Notice te Consurner or Employee and Objection was mailed. ¢. My residence or business address is (specify): 19760 Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502 d. My phone number is (Specify): (310) 464-8655 I declare under penalty of perjury under the iaws of the laws of the State of California that the f regoing is true and correct. Date: 04/06/2018 7 Trixie Estanislao | (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS (Cade of Civ. Proc,.§§ 1985.3, 1885.6) Personal Service 1] Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. Iserved a copy ofthe Objection to Production of Records as follow (complete efther a or b): a. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY | Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: () Name of person served: (i) Date served: (i) Address where served: (ivy Time served: 2) MM Mail. | deposited the Objection to Production of Records in the United States mall, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: {fy Name of person served: (@) Date of mailing: (i) Address: Gv) Place of mailing (city and state: (v} I'am resident of or employed ir the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed, b. ON THE WITNESS: m 1] Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: (iy 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: (ii) Date of mailing: (i) Address: (v) Place of mailing {city and state): (V} 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): | 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) Page 2 of 2 SUBP-025[Rev. Janvary 1, 2008] NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION sa car SUBP-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY Name, state bar number, and a : \ No. C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq., SBN 275635 mon and ates) reo ero FoR couRT USE ONLY | XO Legal, Inc. 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 TELEPHONE NO: (562) 628-5548 FAX NO. (optional): (714) 242-1590 E-MAIL ADDRESS: kim @ko-Tegal.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs, Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street CITY AND 2P Cope: Los Angeles, 90012 BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFF/ Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/ Dr. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision RESPONDENT: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NuMBER: BC689872 For Production of Business Records THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF: Facebook, Inc., 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows: To (name of deposition officer): Titan Legal Services, Inc. On (date): 04/26/2018 At (me): 10:00 am Location (address): 19700 Vermont Avenue, Suite 225, Torrance, CA 90502, Telephone (310) 464-8655 Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above. a. [x4 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 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 1 563(by). c. [] by making the original business records described in tem 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 Evidence Code Section 1863(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 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. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER ODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1385.3 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 SUBPCENA 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, Date issued: ~~ April 6, 2018 bp /s/ C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq. C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq. (SIGNATURE OF PERSON ISSUING SUBPGENA) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Attorney for Plaintiffs (Proof of service on page two) TLE Page one of two Fon sdopiad foc Nsnagtons Use DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION SRE CH Froedire, J Joh M0 Miata: SUER-010 (Rev, January 1, 2012) OF B USINESS RECORDS Goverrment Code § 6807.1 SU298109-01/CPROOF 108 www. TristarSoftware com ATTACHMENT 3 L DEFINITIONS: 1. “YOU” and “YOUR: Refers to the Facebook, Inc., its agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf, 2. “DR. LIN:” Refers to the Facebook page/profile for the individual named DR. ROBERT LIN (https://www.facebook com/DrRobertLin). 3. “IQ LASER — @IQLaserVision:” Refers to the Facebook page/profile for IQ Laser Vision with the page identification @IQLaser Vision (http://www. facebook. com/IQLaser Vision/.) 4. “IQ LASER — @iglaser:” Refers to the Facebook page/profile for IQ Laser Vision with the page identification @iqlaser (https://www.facebook.com/iglaser/) 5. “CHI HUNG HO:” Refers to CHI HUNG HO his agents, aitormeys, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf, 6. “KAR YUNG LAU” Refers to KAR YUNG LAU his agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf, % DOCUMENT(S)”: As used herein, the term “DOCUMENT is used in the broadest sense possible and includes, without limitation, the following items, whether punted, recorded or reproduced by any other mechanical process or written or produced by hand or in electronic or native form: writings; papers; books; letters; tangible things; records; correspondence; e-mails; telegrams; cables; telex messages; facsimiles; memoranda; diaries; reports; notes; notations; work papers; financial records; communications; summaries; executive summaries; transcripts; records of conversations; interviews; meetings; telephone conversations or conferences; minutes; audio or videotapes; cassettes or disks; statistical statements; graphs; charts; accounts; analytical records or data; reports or summaries of investigations; computerized records or data; affidavits; statements; opinions; studies; appraisals; estimates; projections; illustrations; tables; maps; schedules; worksheets; proposals; contracts; agreements; desk or other calendars; appointments books; lists; tabulations; business records; books of accounts; ledgers; journals; balance sheets; financial statements; accountant’s statements; bank statements; drafts; negotiable instruments; checks; receipts; invoices; purchase orders; bills; microfilms; photographs and negatives thereof. The term “DOCUMENTS” also includes both originals and copies containing or having attached to them any alterations, notes comments or other material not appearing on the original or any other copies not containing such material, and shall include 1 drafts, revisions of drafts, and other preliminary material from any source, underlying supporting or used in the preparation of any “DOCUMENTS.” The term “DOCUMENTS” further includes any file or other container holding, or at which at any time held, any “DOCUMENTS” as wall as any writing or other communication which appears or appeared om, or affixed to, such file or other container. po 7. “REGARDING”: means and includes regarding, relates to, refers to, regards, mentions, concerning, commenting om, summarizing, referring to, discussing, describing, mentioning, reflecting, pertaining to, contradicting, constituting, memorializing, evidencing, and/or commemorating. o. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS: 1. Al DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control REGARDING DR. LIN from January 1, 2012 to present, including 2. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control REGARDING IQ LASER — @IQLaser Vision from January 1, 2012 to present. 3. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control REGARDING IQ LASER ~ @iqlaser from January 1, 2012 to present. 4. AIL DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control REGARDING DR. LIN’s page which refer to KAR YUNG LAU, from J amuary 1, 2012 to present. S. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all references to KAR YUNG LAU on the IQ LASER - @IQLaserVision page from January 1, 2012 to present, whether private or public, and including but not limited to mini-feed information, status updates, links to videos, photographs, articles, groups, networks which the user is a member, future and past event posting, comments, and tags. 6. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all references to CHI HUNG HO on the IQ LASER - @IQLaserVision page from January 1, 2012 to present, whether private or public, and including but not limited to mini-feed information, status updates, links to videos, photographs, articles, groups, networks which the user is a member, future and past event posting, comments, and tags. 7. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all references to KAR YUNG LAU on the IQ LASER - @iglaser page from January 1, 2012 to present, whether private or public, and including but not limited to mini-feed information, status nN updates, links to videos, photographs, articles, groups, networks which the user is a member, future and past event posting, comments, and tags. 8. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all references to CHI HUNG HO on the IQ LASER - @iqlaser page from J anuary 1, 2012 to present, whether private or public, and including but not limited to mini-feed information, status updates, links to videos, photographs, articles, groups, networks which the user is a member, future and past event posting, comments, and tags. 9. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all references to KAR YUNG LAU on the DR. LIN page from January 1, 2012 to present, whether private or public, and including but not limited to mini-feed information, status updates, links to videos, photographs, articles, groups, networks which the user is a member, future and past event posting, comments, and tags. 10. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all references to CHI HUNG HO on the DR. LIN page from January 1, 2012 to present, whether private or public, and including but not limited to mini-feed information, status updates, links to videos, photographs, articles, groups, networks which the user is a member, future and past event posting, comments, and tags. 11. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all communication by IQ LASER ~ @IQLaser Vision regarding KAR YUNG LAU, from January 1, 2012 to present, including messages made or received by the user, including all private messages and pending “friend” requests.” 12. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all communication. by IQ LASER — @IQLaser Vision regarding CHI HUNG HO, from January 1, 2012 to present, including messages made or received by the user, including all private messages and pending “friend” requests.” 13. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all communication by IQ LASER — @jiglaser regarding KAR YUNG LAU, from J anuary 1, 2012 to present, including messages made or received by the user, including all private messages and pending “friend” requests.” 14. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custedy, and control which reflect all communication by IQ LASER — @iqlaser regarding CHI HUNG HO, from January 1, 2012 to present, including messages made or received by the user, including all private messages and pending “friend” requests.” 15. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all communication by DR. LIN regarding KAR YUNG LAU, from January 1, 2012 to present, including messages made or received by the user, including all private messages and pending “friend” requests.” 16. All DOCUMENTS in YOUR possession, custody, and control which reflect all communication by DR. LIN regarding CHI HUNG HO, from J. anuary 1, 2012 to present, Including messages made or received by the user, including all private messages and pending “friend” requests.” 17. AN IP logs, including all records of the IP addresses that logged into the account for DR. LIN from January 1, 2012 to present. 18. AH IP logs, including all records of the IP addresses that logged into the account for IQ LASER — @iqlaser from January 1, 2012 to present. 19. ALL TP Joges, including all records of the IP addresses that logged into the account for IQ LASER — @IQLaserVision from January 1, 2012 to present. 20. All photographs and videos in YOUR possession, custody, and control posted on or added to DR. LIN’s page in any way from J anuary 1, 2012 to present. 21. All photographs and videos in YOUR possession, custody, and control posted on or added to LASER — @IQLaserVision’s page in any way from January 1, 2012 to present. 22. All photographs and videos in YOUR possession, custody, and control posted on or added to IQ LASER ~ @iglaser’s page in any way from January 1, 2012 to present. 23. Allrecords pertaining to communications between YOU and any person regarding 1Q LASER ~ @IQLaser Vision from January 1, 2012 to present, including contact with support services and records of actions taken. 24. Allrecords pertaining to communications between YOU and any person regarding IQ LASER - @iqlaser from January 1, 2012 to present, including contact with support services and records of actions taken. 25. Allrecords pertaining to communications between YOU and any person regarding DR. LIN from January 1, 2012 to present, including contact with support services and records of actions taken. EXHIBIT "B" From: Thomas L. Gourde Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 2:42 PM To: 'Ashleigh Stone’; ‘Kimberly Lind"; pafrasiabi@onellp.com Cc: 'David A. DuMont’; 'Lee C. Cheng’ Subject: Today's IDC Ashleigh, [ am following up on today’s IDC with Judge Beaudet in Department 50. I am pleased that we had a chance to discuss the matter with the judge and she could express her opinion about the subpoenas—which was much in line with my what | had indicated before about their deficiencies and improper scope. The problems include their overbroad request for material and “documents” as they are defined in each subpoena, their request for irrelevant information and records and their request for material for an excessive period of time. As was suggested by the judge, the scope, time span, and nature of the requests for production attached the subpoenas should be narrowed and made more relative to your client’s case, and not be so overbroad or over encompassing. | think her suggestions were very poignant and hopefully you can discuss them at Ms. Lind right away. We hope you will agree to withdraw the subpoenas and then you can narrow them to a few questions that will seek relevant and pertinent information related to case--rather than every imaginable document, record, and item related to Dr. Lin or the Corporation’s Facebook pages or radio station records from January 2012 to the present. Per our discussion, | will hold off on re-filing the motions to quash pending some response by you by Friday of next week about your decision. Please call if questions. Regards, Thomas L. Gourde RAY & GOURDE, LLP Email: tgourdelaw@cox.net Web: www.tgourdelaw.com The information in this email is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by return email or by contacting Thomas L Gourde. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Mr. Gourde for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use thereof. Thomas L. Gourde Sent from my iPhone EXHIBIT "C" SUBP-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): Ref. No, or File No FOR uss E 3 i ; : . No. : COURT USE ONLY C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq., SEN 275633 KO Legal, Inc. i 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 TELEPHONE NO.: (562) 628-5548 FAX NO. (optional: (714) 242-1590 E-MAL ADDRESS: Kim@ko-Jegal.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs, Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lae SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STREET ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street CITY AND 22P CODE: Los Angeles, 90012 BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFF/ Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau PETITIONER: DEFENDANT/ ~~ Dr. Robert Lin dba YQ Laser Vision RESPONDENT: Amended DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER: BC689872 For Production of Business Records THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, ane telephone number of deponent, if known): CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS OF- Facebook, Inc., 1601 Willow Road, Menlo’ Park, CA 84025 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, 2s follows: To (name of deposition officer): Titan Legal Services, Inc. On (date): 1/2/2019 At (time): 10:00 am Location (address): 19700 Vermont Avenue, Suite 225, Torrance, CA 90502, Telephone (310) 464-8655 Do not release the requested records fo 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 fitle 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, legibie 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). &: [] by making the original business records described in tem 2 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 1567. 3. The records tc be produced are described as follows 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. 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 1985.8 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 LEABLE FOR THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND ALL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY. Date issued: December 4, 2018 > Confol SE — Ashleigh N. Stone, Esq. (YONATORE Cr PERSON SUNG SUBPOENA) (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) Attorney for Plaintiffs {Proof of service on page two) LE Page one of two Form Adopted for Mancitory Use DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION ose of ii Procedure, Lite ie SUBP-010 {Rev. January 1, 2012] OF BUSINESS RECO RDS Sovernment Code § www. TristarSoftware.com ATTACHMENT 3 IL DEFINITIONS: CL “YOU” and “YOUR:” Refers to the Facebook, Inc., its agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf. 2. “DR. LIN:” Refers to the Facebook page/profile for the individual named DR. ROBERT LIN (https://www.facebook.com/DrRobertL in). 3. “IQ LASER —- @IQLaser Vision” Refers to the Facebook page/profile for IQ Laser Vision with the page identification @IQLaserVision (htps://www.facebook.com/IQLaserVision/.) 4. “IQ LASER ~ @iqlaser” Refers to the Facebook page/profile for IQ Laser Vision with the page identification @iqlaser (https://www.facebook.com/iglaser/) 5. “CHI HUNG HO: Refers to CHI HUNG HO, {ZH his agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf. 6. “KAR YUNG LAU: Refers to KAR YUNG LAU, 8] & XE, his agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, investigators, and anyone else acting on his behalf. 7. DOCUMENT(S)”: As used herein, the tern “DOCUMENT™ is used in the broadest sense possible and includes, without limitation, the following items, whether printed, recorded or reproduced by any other mechanical process or written or produced by hand or in electronic or native form: writings; papers; books; letters; tangible things; records: correspondence; e-mails; telegrams; cables; telex messages; facsimiles; memoranda; diaries; reports; notes; notations; work papers; financizl records; communications; summaries; executive summaries; transcripts; records of conversations; interviews; meetings; telephone conversations or conferences; minutes; audio or videotapes; cassettes or disks; statistical statements; graphs; charts; accounts; analytical records or data; reports or summaries of investigations; computerized records or data; affidavits; statements; opinions; studies; appraisals; estimates; projections; illustrations; tables; maps; schedules; worksheets; proposals; contracts; agreements; desk or other calendars; appointments books; lists; tabulations; business records; books of accounts; ledgers; journals; Planes sheets; financial statements; accountant’s statements; bank statements; drafts; negotiable instruments; checks; receipts; invoices; purchase orders; bills; microfilms; photographs and negatives thereof. The term “DOCUMENTS” also includes both originals and copies containing or having attached to them any alterations, notes comments or other material not appearing on the original or any other copies not containing such material, and shall include drafts, revisions of drafts, and other preliminary material from any source, underlying supporting or used in the preparation of any “DOCUMENTS.” The term “DOCUMENTS” further includes any file or other container holding, or at which at any time held, any “DOCUMENTS” as well as any writing or other communication which appears or appeared on, or affixed to, such file or other container. 7. “MENTIONS™: means and includes regarding, relates to, refers to, regards, mentions, concerning, commenting on, summarizing, referring to, discussing, describing, mentioning, reflecting, pertaining to, contradicting, constituting, memorializing, evidencing, and/or commemorating. Ho. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS: 1. Actual exemplar of all posts by DR. LIN that MENTIONS CHI HUNG HO. Actual exemplar of all posts by DR. LIN that MENTIONS KAR YUNG LAU. Actual exemplar of all posts by IQ LASER ~— @IQLaserVision that MENTIONS CHI HUNG HO. 4. Actual exemplar of all posts by IQ LASER — @IQLaserVision that MENTIONS KAR YUNG LAU. 5. Actual exemplar of all posts by IQ LASER — @iqlaser that MENTIONS CHI HUNG HO. 6. Actual exemplar of all posts by IQ LASER — @iqlaser that MENTIONS KAR YUNG LAU. - 7. DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of re-posts, views and likes for each post by DR. LIN that MENTIONS CHI HUNG HO. 8. DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of re-posts, views and likes for each post by DR. LIN that MENTIONS KAR YUNG LAU. 9. DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of re-posts, views and likes for each post by IQ LASER ~ @IQLaserVision that MENTIONS CHI HUNG HO. 10. DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of re-posts, views and likes for each post by IQ LASER — @IQLaserVision that MENTIONS KAR YUNG LAU. 11. DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of re-posts, views and likes for each post by DR. LIN that MENTIONS CHI HUNG HO. 12. DOCUMENTS that reflect the number of re-posts, views and likes for each post by DR. LIN that MENTIONS KAR YUNG LAU. £ ro Ww SUBP-025 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, state bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY 7] C.E. Kimberly Lind, Esq., SBN 275635 KO Legal, Inc. 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor Long Beach, Ca 90802 TELEPHONENO.. (562) 628-5548 FaxNo: (714) 242-1590 E-MAIL ADDRESS: kim@ko-legal. com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiffs, Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STREETADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS: CITYAND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles 90012 BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Chi Hung Ho dba Kat Yung Lau CASE NUMBER; DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Dr. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision BCE89872 Amended NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.6} NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE TO (name). Dx. Lin and Vision Institute of Southern California dba IQ Laser Vision 1. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT REQUESTING PARTY (name): Plaintiffs » Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Tung Lau SEEKS YOUR RECORDS FOR EXAMINATION by the parties to this action on (specify date): 1/2/2019 The records are described in the subpoena directed fc witness (specify name, address of person or entity from whom records are sought: Facebook, Imc., 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, CA 84025 A copy of the subpoena is attached. 2. IFYOU 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. Ifyou are a party to the above-entiltled action, you must file a moticn pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1 to quash or modify the subpoena and give notice of that motion to the witness and the deposition officer named in the subpoena at least five days before the date sat for the production of the records. b. Ifyou are not 2 party to this action, you must serve on the requesting party and on the witness, before the date sat 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 FARTIES. 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 otherwise represented by an attorney in this action, YOU SHOULD CONSULT AN ATTORNEY TO ADVISE YOU OF YOUR RIGHTS OF PRIVACY. Date: December 4, 2018 Ashleigh N. Stone,Esqg. p> Gall St — Sl EEECARRISINNSIS sonarus oF [| requesTiv saRTY ATTORNEY OBJECTION BY NON-PARTY TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS 1. 1 | object to the production of ali of my records specified in the subpoena. 2. C1] | 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) B {SIGNATURE} {See next pags for proof of service) Page1of2 for Auphecifon Mandaiony fae NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION us Judicial Coungl! of California SUBP-025 [Rev, January 1, 2008) 2020.010-2020.51C www. TristarSoftware.com SUBP-025 PLANTIFFPETTTIONER: Chl Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau CASE NUMBER: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Dr. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision BC689372 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1985.3, 1985.6) Personal Service [XX] Mail 1. At the time of service | was at least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. Iserved a copy of the Notice to Consumer or Employee and Objection as foliows (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: (3) Date served: (2) Address: (4) Time served: b. Mail. | deposited the Notice fo 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: Thomas Gourde, Esq. (3) Date of mailing: 12/07/2018 (2) Address: Ray & Gourde, LLP, 111 Pacifica, Suite 120, irvine, CA 92518 (4) Place of mailing: Torrance, CA (5) | am a resident cf or employed in the county where the Notice fo Consumer or Empioyee and Objection was mailed. ¢. My residence or business address is (specify): 18700 Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502 d. My phone number is (Specify): (310) 464-8655 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the laws of the State of California that the fi regoing is true and correct. Date: 12/07/2018 : 7 Trixie Estanislao b (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS {Code of Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.6) Personal Service 1 Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was at least 18 years of 2ge and not a party to this legal action. 2. served a copy of the Objection fo Production of Records zs follow (complete either a or b): a. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY (1) [1 personal service. ) personally delivered the Objection fo Production of Records as follows: (i) Name of person served: (ii) Dete served: (ii) Address where served: (iv) Time served: (2) [J mail. | deposited the Objection to Production of Records in the United States mail, in 2 sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (i) Name of person served; (iy Date of mailing: (ily Address: (Vv) Place of mailing (city and state: (v) Tam resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was mailed. b. ON THE WITNESS: (1) [] Personal service. | personally defivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: (i) Name of person served: (li) Date served: (i) Address where served: | (iv) Time served: @[_] Mail. | deposited the Objection fo Production of Records in the United States mall, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: . (fy Name of person served: (i) Date of mailing: (iy Address: (iv) Place of mailing (City and state): (v) | am a resident of or employed in the county where the Objection to Production of Records was maiied. 3. My residence or business address is (specify): 4. My phone number is (specify): | dectare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the fo regoing is true and correct, Date; (TYPE OR PRINT NAME QF PERSON WHO SERVED; (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) Page 2 of 2 SUBP-025[Rev. January 1, 2008] NOTICE TC CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION wv TristarSoftware.com SL302257-01/CPRCOF16M SUBP-025 PuaNTEFPETMIONER: Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau CASE NUMBER: | DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Dx. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision BCeaggT2 PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION (Code Civ. Proc.,§§ 1985.3, 1985.5) ] Personal Service Mail 1. Atthe time of service | was zt least 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. I'served 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 fo Consumer or Employee and Objection as follows: (1) Name of person served: (3) Date served: (2) Address: (4) Time served: 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 z2ddressed as follows: (1) Name of person served: Lee C, Cheng, Esq. (3) Date of mailing: 12/07/2018 {2) Address: The Webb Law Firm, 1 Gateway Ctr, 420 Fort Duquesne Blvd. Ste. 1200, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (4) Place of mailing: Torrance, CA (5) 1 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): 19700 Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502 d. My phone number is (Specify): (310) 464-8555 | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the laws of the State of Califo rnia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 12/07/2018 TL , Trixie Estanislao > (YYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) PROOF OF SERVICE OF OBJECTION TO PRODUCTION OF RECORDS (Code of Civ, Proc.,§§ 1 985.3, 1985.6) Personal Service [J Mail 1. Af the time of service | was at lzast 18 years of age and not a party to this legal action. 2. 1served a copy of the Objection fo Production of Records as follow {complete either a or b): a. ON THE REQUESTING PARTY mn [I] Personal service. | personally delivered the Objection to Production of Records as follows: (I) Name of person served: (ify Date sarved: (i) Address where served: {v) Time served: >] 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: (i) Date of mailing; (ii) Address: . (iv) Place of maiiing (city and state: (v) 1 am 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 to Production of Records as follows: (i) Name of person served: (fii) Date served: (i) Address where served: : (iv) Time served: @[_] Mail. | deposited the Objection fo Production of Records in the United States mall, in a sealed envelope with pestage fully prepaid. The envelope was addressed as follows: (1) Name of person served: (i) Date of mailing: (ity Address: (Vv) Place of mailing (city and state): (v) | am a resident of or employed in the county where the Objection fo Production of Records was mailed. 3. My residence or business address is (specify): 4. My phone number is (specify): t declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Caiffomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: BP (TYPE OR PRINT NAME OF PERSON WHO SERVED) (SIGNATURE OF PERSON WHO SERVED) Page 20f 2 SUBF-Qz Pe. damn 1, 2008 NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION Piva Proof of Service |, Trixie Estanislac, and any employee retained by Titan Legal Services, Inc., am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. | am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action, my business address is 19700 Vermont Avenue, Torrance, CA 90502. On December 7, 2018 | served the foregoing documents described as: DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS {with Attachment); NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION; PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AND OBJECTION; to interested parties on this action XXX ~ (BY MAIL) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelope addressed as follows: Ray & Gourde, LLP Thomas Gourde, Esq. 111 Pacifica, Suite 120 Irvine, CA 926818 XXX (Mailing list continued on next page) BY MAIL XXX As follows: | 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 the same day with postage thereon fully paid at Torrance, California, in the ordinary course of business. Executed on December 7, 2018, at Torrance, CA. XXX (State) | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Fm Signed: Trixie Estanislao Titan Legal Services, Inc. © 19700 Vermont Avenue Torrance, CA 90502 Phone: (310) 464-8655 Fax: (310) 464-8654 (Continued from previous page.) (MAIL SERVICE) by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelope addressed as follows The Webb Law Firm Lee C. Cheng, Esq. 1 Gateway Ctr, 420 Fort Duquesne Bivd., Ste. 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Orcers: SU30S357-01/Cproct23 EXHIBIT "D" 111 PACIFICA SUITE 120 . RAY & GOURDE, LLP IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92518 i A tito rn e ys at L aw Teiephone 949-825-6520 Focsimile. 949-825-4544 December 12, 2018 VIA EMAIL & U.S. MAIL ONLY Ms. C.E. Kimberly Lind KO Legat, Inc. 100 Oceangate, 12% Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Oscar M. Orozco-Botello ONE LLP 9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Re: Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau v. Dr. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision Case No. BC689872 Dear Counsel: I am writing to meet and confer regarding your non-party subpoena to Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook™), which you issued on December 4, 2018. We have determined that the Facebook subpoena is objectionable, and thus subject to a motion to quash. It is objectionable for the following reasons and again, should be withdrawn or modified: POSSIBLE MOTION TO QOUASH First, the subpoena is deficient because it seeks records related to Dr. Lin, individually while at the same time seeking records from "IQ Laser Vision." When this case was first filed, "IQ Laser Vision" was improperly named as a dba of Dr. Lin and - after we litigated that matter, your client amended his complaint to separately name IQ Laser Vision as a corporate Defendant. Now, both Dr. Lin and IQ Laser Vision (a dba of Vision Institute of Southern California) are separate Defendants, but your subpoena lumps them together as if IQ Laser Vision is simply a dba of Dr. Lin rather than Vision Institute of Southern California. If your attempt is in fact to get records of Vision Institute of Southern California, a separate subpoena should be issued for those records and the subpoena should be clear about that request. Second, the requests are vague and ambiguous, overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The records seek "all" posts by Dr. Lin and IQ Laser that mentions either Chi Hung Ho or Kar Hung Lau--and such requests are F r e T gr p r e TTI AN Ar TR esas sum, arr RAY & GOURDE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW December 12, 2018 Page 2 overbroad as to time. (See Requests Nos. 1-6). Additionally, many of the terms, such as reference to "exemplars," and "posts" are vague and ambiguous and are not defined. This makes such requests objectionable. Consequently, based on the above, please confirm that you will be withdrawing the subpoena or amending it. Otherwise, if not, we will need to again file a motion to quash the Facebook subpoena. I look forward to your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, RAY & GOURDE, LLP Tae CC: Legal for Facebook Peter Afrasiabi One LLP via email EXHIBIT "E" to o e 3 O N t h A Ww 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lee C. Cheng (CA Bar No. 1913 80) The Webb Law Firm One Gateway Center 420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd., Ste. 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 471-8815 Fax: (412) 471-4094 Thomas Gourde (CA. Bar No. 150483) RAY & GOURDE, LLP 111 Pacifica, Suite 120 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 825-6525 Fax: (949) 825-6544 Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Robert Lin dba IQ Laser Vision Vision Institute of Southern California SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT CHI HUNG HO dba KAR YUNG LAU, an individual, Plaintiff, VS. DR. ROBERT LIN dba IQ LASER VISION, an individual; VISION INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION dba IQ LASER VISION, and DOES 2 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. BC 689872 Honorable Teresa A. Beaudet Judge DEFENDANTS DR. ROBERT LIN (erroneously sued as “dba IQ LASER VISION”) AND VISION INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION'S (dba IQ LASER VISION) OBJECTION TO DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. Complaint Filed: January 17, 2018 Trial Date: May 1, 2019 DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN dba IQ LASER VISION'S OBJECTION 10 DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. R= = TE VS Tr 10 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Defendants Dr. Robert Lin, also erroneously sued as “dba IQ Laser Vision,” (“Defendant Dr. Lin) and Vision Institute of Southern California, a Professional Medical Corporation, dba IQ Laser Vision (“Defendant Vision Institute”) objects to Plaintiff CHI HUNG HO dba KAR YUNG LAU's Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records Facebook, Inc. (the “Subpoena™) as follows: GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. Defendants object to the Subpoena and each individual document requests contained therein to the extent that they attempt to seek documents containing confidential, proprietary information. 2. Defendants object to the Subpoena and each individual document requests contained therein to the extent that they seek documents outside the time period relevant to this action. 3. Defendants object to the Subpoena and each individual document requests contained therein to the extent that they seek documents beyond the scope of the issues relevant to this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Marvel, inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., 353 F.3d 792, 813-14 (2003). 4. Defendants object to the Subpoena and each individual document requests contained therein to the extent that the description of the documents requested are unintelligible, vague, ambiguous, and unduly burdensome as to render it impossible to respond in any reasonable manner or amount of time. Code of Civil Procedure §2020.51 0(@)(2)-(3); Calcor Facility Inc., v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App.4% 316, 222. 5. Defendants object to the Subpoena and each individual document requests contained therein to the extent that the description of the documents are overbroad and without reasonable limitation in scope. 2 DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN dba IQ LASER VISION’S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. WW 0 3 h h BR W N me J BN B N R ) rm a e d e d b l a e t e d p a p a p a * S R Y R U B E N I Ss s o n = wa SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the terms "exemplar" and "posts." Not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it seeks records from Dr. Lin's personal Facebook account. Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the terms "exemplar" and "posts." Not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it seeks records from Dr. Lin's personal Facebook account. . Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the terms "exemplar" and "posts." Vague and ambiguous as to the term "IQ Laser" as it is unclear if this reference is seeking records for the erroneously sued dba or Defendant Vision Institute of Southern California. Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the terms "exemplar" and "posts.” Vague and ambiguous as to the term "IQ Laser” as it is unclear if this reference is seeking records for the erroneously sued dba or Defendant Vision Institute of Southern California. Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the terms "exemplar" and "posts." Vague and ambiguous as to the term "IQ Laser" as it is unclear if this reference is seeking records for the erroneously sued dba or Defendant Vision Institute of Southern California. Objection. Vague and ambiguous as to the terms "exemplar” and "posts." Vague and ambiguous as to the term "IQ Laser" as it is unclear if this reference is seeking records for the erroneously sued dba or Defendant Vision Institute of Southern California. Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous as to the term "re-posts.” Not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it seeks records from Dr. Lin's personal Facebook account. 3 DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN dba IQ LASER VISION’S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. OO 00 N N a Wn bs W N NN B Y = = p e = a a p m em p a p m 8. Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous as to the term "re-posts.” Not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it seeks records from Dr. Lin's personal Facebook account. 9. Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous as to the term "re-posts.” Vague and ambiguous as to the term "IQ Laser" as it is unclear if this reference is seeking records for the erroneously sued dba or Defendant Vision Institute of Southern Califomia. 10. Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous as to the term "re-posts." Vague and ambiguous as to the term "IQ Laser" as it is unclear if this reference is seeking records for the erroneously sued dba or Defendant Vision Institute of Southern California. 11. Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous as to the term "re-posts." Not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it seeks records from Dr. Lin's personal Facebook account. 12. Objection. Compound. Vague and ambiguous as to the term "re-posts." Not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as it seeks records from Dr. Lin's personal Facebook account. Date: December 12, 2018 ls, Qe 0 Thomas L. Gourde Lee C. Cheng Attorneys for Defendant Dr. Robert Lin, also erroneously sued as dba IQ Laser Vision 4 DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN dba IQ LASER VISIONS OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. W o NN a o A ow 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Iam 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 111 Pacifica, Suite 120, Irvine, Cz 92618. On December 12, 2018, I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS DR. ROBERT LIN (erromeousiy sued as “dba IQ LASER VISION ”) AND VISION INSTITUTE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, A PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL CORPORATION'S (dba IQ LASER VISION) OBJECTION TO DEPOSTION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. on all interested parties in this action at the addresses listed below, as follows: C. E. Kimberly Lind Oscar M. Orozco-Botello KO Legal, Inc. ONE LLP 100 Oceangate, 12th Floor 9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Long Beach, CA 90802 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Facsimile: (714) 242-1590 Tel: (310) 866-5157 kim@ko-legal.com oobotello@onellp.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau [X] By U.S. Mail: By depositing a true copy (copies) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and by placing said sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. I am “readily familiar” with the business’ practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing by the U.S. Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Orange County, California, in the ordinary course of business. (J VIA Email: Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, by transmitting a true copy (copies) of the foregoing documents to each of the designated counsel on the service list to their email address(es) as listed herein. [1 By Personal Service: I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand via messenger service to the address(es) above; I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on December 12, 2018, at Irvine, California. Kdri A. Martin, Esquire 5 DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN dba IQ LASER VISION'S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS FROM FACEBOOK, INC. EXHIBIT "F" 1/14/2019 Gmail - Ho v. Lin, et al. Gmail Kari Rader Ho v. Lin, et al. Kari Martin Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 11:31 AM To: Peter Afrasiabi Cc: "Lee C. Cheng" , "David A. DuMont" , Oscar Orozco-Botello , "kim@ko-legal.com" , "GVadala@webblaw.com"” , "ashleigh@ko-legal.com” , "Thomas L. Gourde" , Lauren Thomas Mr. Afrasiabi, I'am following up for Mr. Gourde. First, can you give us the date you will be providing the supplemental responses? We need to know a date so we know when to expect them. We have calendared a deadline to file motions to compel, but will hold off pending receipt of the supplemental responses. As for the date you gave us for your client's deposition, February 4, is that the only date he is available, cr can he be available on February 5 or 8. Please let us know so we can get a date that works for everyone. As for the PMK deposition of our client, we will get later available dates and send those after the holidays. Additionally, we sent objections to the subpoenas to Facebook and KMRB. We have not received any responses to those objections and are poised to again file motions to quash. Before we do that, please let us know if you will modify or amend those subpoenas. We look forward to your prompt response on that issue so we can address that. Otherwise, we need to proceed accordingly. Please respond by email if you have any questions or concerns. Best Regards, Kari Martin Associate Attorney RAY & GOURDE, LLP 111 Pacifica, Suite 120 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel. 949-825-6520 Fax. 949-825-6544 The information in this email is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately by return email or by contacting Thomas L Gourde. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person. Althaugh this email and any aftachments are believed to be free of any virus, or any other defect which might affect any computer or IT system into which they are received and opened. it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Mr. Gourde for any loss or damage arising in any way from receipt or use. [Quoted text hidden] https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=e27c5a2ebb&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar61 75640407738822461 &simpl=msg-a%3Ar61756404... 1/1 Oo 0 Na A N hn xs W N N N N N N N O N N Y RN Y m k e m m m e d e m ee d ee d p t e m pe 0 3 AN UN R W O O N N R W = O PROOK 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 111 Pacifica, Suite 120, Irvine, CA 92618. On January 14, 2019, I served the foregoing NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA SEEKING PRODUCTION OF RECORDS OF DEFENDANT DR. ROBERT LIN (ALSO ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS DBA IQ LASER VISION), OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, LIMITING THE SCOPE OF THE SUBPOENA; DECLARATION OF THOMAS L. GOURDE; REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS OF $1,612.50 AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY OF RECORD, C.E. KIMBERLY LIND all interested parties in this action at the addresses listed below, as follows: . . Facebook, Inc. Titan Legal Services « Ba 1 ’ ¢ KO Tee y Lind Attn: Legal Department 19700 Vermont Avenue, 100 Oceangcate 1 th Floor 1601 Willow Road Suite 225 f=) 2 Long Beach, CA 90802 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tomance, oa 90502 Facsimile: (714) 242-1590 a EE kim@ko-legal.com cs@titanlegalservices.com Peter Abrasiabi ONE LLP 4000 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 500 Newport Beach, CA 926660 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Chi Hung Ho dba Kar Yung Lau [X'] By U.S. Mail: By depositing a true copy (copies) thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope(s), addressed as above, and by placing said sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing on that date following ordinary business practices. 1 am “readily familiar” with the business’ practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing by the U.S. Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Orange County, California, in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on January 14, 2019, at Irvine, California. Oh Kari A. Martin, Esq. 14 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA BC 689872 Make a Reservation | Journal Technologies Court Portal Journal Technologies Court Portal Make a Reservation CHIHUNG HO VS DR ROBERT LIN Case Number: BC689872 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort Date Filed: 2018-01-17 Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 50 Reservation Case Name: oo | oo Case Number: | CHI HUNG HO VS DR ROBERT LIN BC689872 Type: Status: Motion to Quash (subpoena) RESERVED Party: : Location: Robert Dr. Lin (Defendant) Stanley Mosk Courthouse - Department 50 Date/Time: Number of Motions: 04/18/2019 8:30 AM 7 1 Reservation ID: Confirmation Code: 140784311664 CR-GGX6PYAUOEZNES(VY7 Fees Description Fee Qty Amount Motion to Quash (name extension) 60.00 1 60.00 Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%) 1.65 1 1.65 TOTAL $61.65 Payment Amount: Type: $61.65 s Visa Account Number: Authorization: XXXX1823 08758G #4 Print Receipt * <4 Reserve Another Hearing Copyright © Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.
