Motion for Protective Order in ARMANDO REYES VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL| Trellis.Law

On March 08, 2019 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Reyes,, Reyes, Armando, and Carter, Scott, Does 1 To 20, Filipovic, Peter, Grismer, Patrick, Johnson, Kevin, Lu, Jen, Minner, Shaunta, Starbucks Corporation, for PERSONAL INJURY/PROPERTY DAMAGE - NON-VEHICLE RELATED in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J.D.
Legum Magister Candidate—International Human Righis F

State of California Certified Mediator Seberier Court of Californie
6360 Eighth Street. . .
Riverbank, California. 95367 MAR 0:4-2020

Phone | 209-596-3023

Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com ot F RK OF " E COURT
puty Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION—DISCOVERY REFEREE ADJUDICATION

ARMANDO REYES, Case No.: CGC-19-574396
Plaintiff, DISCOVERY
vs. DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF

ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, JEN LU OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT

(MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S
CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED
DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, OBJECTION MOTION FORA
PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants.

DATE: MARCH 12, 2020
TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)
DEPT: 302

COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN MENTIONED:
Ml

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Armando Reyes hereby submits this
Declaration in vigorous opposition of Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order. This motion is|
one of the most fraudulent judicial requests that I have ever seen, and this declaration will
highlight just how shameful these lawyers go to in order to sideline justice.
I, Armando Reyes, J.D., declare as follows:
1. Lam a self-represented litigant in the matter of Armando Reyes y. Starbucks
Corporation and case #: CGC-19-574396, in the San Francisco Superior
Court.
2. Ihave personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and this
motion and would testify to them if called to do so.
3. On March 8, 2019, I filed my personal injury and intentional torts complaint
against Starbucks Corporation and other defendants.
4. This Motion for “Protective” Order is late, as it was filed months after the
December notification of its occurrence.
5. To date, Defendants have not provided a single piece of evidence requested
within the deposition notices and document demands, so on January 31, 2020,
I was forced to file a Motion to Compel the Production of Documents and the
Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant’s Person Most
Knowledgeable. This Motion was duly accepted and filed in the San
Francisco Superior Court’s Register of Actions on February 3, 2020, and the
matter was scheduled for March 24, 2020. A true copy has been marked for

identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 1.0.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 227

6. In reference to the March 24, 2020 hearing, and the motion labeled as Plaintiff
Reyes’ Exhibit 1.0, I did not obtain timely objections, so therefore, all
objections are now deemed waived. I tried to educate Counsel Genge on this,
but she did not accept what I told her. Notable to mention, these Defendants
did not show up to the Deposition, nor did they provide a communication that
they would like to postpone such Deposition.

7. In reference to the Second Deposition for Starbucks Corporation’s Person
Most Knowledgeable, I was forced to file a Motion to Compel the Deposition
that they did not show up to, nor provided a single piece of evidence. Such
Motion was served on January 31, 2020, and the motion was accepted and
reflected on the San Francisco Superior Court’s Register of Actions on
February 3, 2020, and the matter was scheduled for March 26, 2020. A true
copy has been marked for identification as Plaintiff Reyes’ Exhibit 2.0.

8. Itis important to note that Counsel Genge and I do not talk to each other; we
have extreme animosity among each other. Also, it must be mentioned that
she has committed “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” by perjuring herself
several times within this litigation cycle. Now to address some of the blunt
lies of Counsel Emily Grace Genge. She claims that I called her a “witch
and/or a cow” in her non-sworn pleading. 1 would be willing to go to State
Prison for four (4) years if she can prove this. I Declare under Penalty of
Perjury that I have NEVER called her a “cow” and or a “witch”. I am not surd

if she dreamed of this, or if she simply is obsessed with disparaging and

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 327

10.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4

. Defendant’s Counselor Emily Grace Genge has been on an active campaign to

imposing illusory facts that she would go to extreme lows and make things up

for the satisfaction of destroying my reputation and integrity. Why is this not

in her sworn declaration? Answer: Because this is NOT true! She has lied
about her hourly pay on former Declarations and has misrepresented facts that!
are inaccurate to this Court at hearings, as was the case with the Honorable
Judge Wohl, in which they were sanctioned. More notable, she has recently
been reported to the California State Bar for investigation, as perjury has been
her modus operandi since the beginning of this litigation cycle. Evidence can
be provided to Your Honor in the event that you wish to make an independent
finding.

Without this evidence, I would not be able to meet my burden of proof at trial,
and that would mean that I would lose and forfeit my right to any real award
of damages.

Defendant’s Attorney, Emily Grace Genge, and her clients have been recently
admonished in their recent violation of the California Discovery Act, for their
illegal withholding of relevant addresses and other pertinent information. The
judge in question said that I “had a right to investigate.” Important to note,

these Defendants have THREE MAJOR discovery violations in a few short

weeks, and some included monetary sanctions.

do whatever she can to get rid of this case. She has harassed me, extorted me,

blackmailed me, and even threated me extensively over the last few months.12.

13.

14.

In her most recent attempt, she attacked my sister, Miss. Angelica Reyes
Contreras, who is by all accounts one of the most religious and devote
Catholic person that I know—she goes to church every Wednesday and
Sunday and is very active in the Catholic community; yet, she was disparaged
by Counsel Emily Grace Genge. Miss. Reyes never disrespects anyone, stays
to herself, but for some reason she has been the latest victim of Counsel
Genge’s harassment and disparaging campaign!

I requested the Most Qualified Officer and NOT a witness for this Deposition
Notice, and I will NOT accept a witness; this would undermine the Corporate
Deposition theory behind their force of “binding them to their deposition
testimony” for trial. This is exactly what the Legislators in California wanted
per C.CP. § 2025.230.

I need all of this evidence because they can prove similar incidents and
injuries at the premises store, and not providing this would constitute
reversable error. This evidence is crucial and needed so that I can establish
and fulfill my burden of proof—especially for the Notice requirement under
the causes of action that I pled.

In numerous previous pleadings, Defendant’s stated that this is, “a straight
forward personal injury case after a metal tumbler, weighing less than one
pound fell on his foot.” Okay, I want to stop right here; if this was a “straight
forward” case, then why did Counsel Genge submit a sworn Declaration on

November 15, 2019, that stated “This number of specially prepared

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 527

15.

16.

interrogatories is warranted under section 2030.040 of the Code of Civil
Procedure because of the complexity and the quantity of the existing and
potential issues in this case.” This sworn Declaration just defeated her lie in
her non-sworn pleading submission. I do not appreciate how they continue to
lack candor to the tribunal, and I also do not appreciate how they continue to
misrepresent the real damages that I survived—injuries that have traumatized
me and have left me permanently scarred for life.

Next, in several of her previous motions, she claimed that this is a small case
that merits few damages, well, for some background, she filed a Motion to
Reclassify this case to the limited jurisdiction of this Court, and this Motion
for DENIED by the Honorable Judge Ulmer. He claimed that the damages
could be much more than the $25,000 amount that is required for the
jurisdiction of this Court and the set of facts at issue. So, if the Honorable
Judge Ulmer, one of the smartest and most respected judges in the country,
denied their motion, why is it that she continues to claim it is a small case
warranting of little damages? Monumental to state, this has been the most
IMPORTANT motion that has been filed in this litigation cycle, and I won
this motion outright.

Another motion that I won was the Site Inspection Order. To address the law
and motion practice query that Defendant Starbucks Corporation addressed by
their comment of “Plaintiffs motion practice is unnecessary, extensive, and

beyond excessive and is nothing more than to harass and burden Defendants.”

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A.
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 6 ‘27

This incident occurred at a local San Francisco store, and I filed a demand to
conduct a site inspection, but they did not even want me to enter the store in
question; they sent me tons of objections, and eventually, I filed a motion to
compel out of necessity, and I won the Motion! Most of the important queries|
were given to me, such as the shelve and the documentation criteria. It is
notable to point out that an Order to Show Cause/Contempt of Court Motion
is to be heard soon for Emily Grace Genge’s disrespectful conduct to this
Court in reference to this Court’s Order.

17. Next, I filed a Motion to Amend DOE 1 in the complaint to add Defendant
Shaunta Minner, and this was also granted to me.by the Honorable Judge
Ethan P. Schulman; this motion is currently the reason why an Order to Show
Cause/Hold in Contempt proceeding has been recently launched against Emil:
Grace Genge for her gross disrespect to the rule of law.

18. Next, I filed a motion to extend page limits for a Motion for Spoliation of
Evidence, and this Motion was granted to me by the Honorable Judge Ethan
P. Schulman.

19. Next, I filed a Motion to Compel the Deposition of Defendant Scott Carter,
and despite a vigorous opposition in open Court from Counsel Emily Grace
Genge, I was able to secure a major victory and a monetary sanction amount.

20. Now that this is out in public, I want to mention that one of my law school
professors, who teaches torts and cybersecurity law told me to request such

information, as it would help with the willful destruction of evidence motion,

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A.
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 721.

22.

23.

and for the trial evidentiary portion of this case. We have a confidentiality
and protective order in place in the event that confidential information is
released.

Defendant Starbucks Corporation did not meet its heavy burden of proof to
get this Motion granted. They did not present a Separate Statement in
Support, nor did they provide good cause for this Motion. Discovery is very
broad in California, and per my civil procedure professor, one of the “most
liberal in the entire country.”

Starbucks Corporation is a multi-billion-dollar corporation, and this is truly
not “unduly burdensome.” For example, back in April/May of 2019, Katrina
Durek (another lawyer assigned to this case) told me that “money was no
issue for Starbucks.” She told me this twice! Defendants now want to use
this Motion to help oppress and suppress my ability to litigate, and this should
be denied immediately. Plus, they have waived all objections to such
deposition notice and production of documents, so no “protection” is
warranted.

I worked very hard on this motion, and I request the following monetary
sanctions amount. These sanctions are tobe deemed a proper measure of
damages. I spent nine (9) hours writing this motion, speaking to law school
professors, investigating civil procedure law books, and on the extensive legal
research required on LexisNexis. I spent $80.00 on printing fees, which

included cases and many statutory codifications of California law, since I

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 827

cannot read many documents on a computer screen, I was forced to print them
all out. I also spent money on postal fees via the United States Postal Service,
according to proof, but whichis to be $40.00 or more. Since I am a State
Certified Mediator, per California Business and Professions Code § 465-
471.5, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Chapter 36, which
enables the substantive provisions of the California Dispute Resolution
Programs Act of 1986, and since my billing rate is $100.00 per hour, and
since I spent 9 hours of my precious time writing and researching for this
motion, hence, I would merit a $900.00 award for my labor, plus my printing
and parcel shipping fees. I respectfully request that these monetary sanctions
amount as to my labor get sent to a local charity of my choosing. As to what ]|
would like back in addition to printing costs: I anticipate on spending $94.00
on Court Call Costs, which is a reimbursable expense. Next, transportation
costs for my ability to properly defend this opposition would be in the $500.00
range, which will include a rental car, fuel, potential lodging expenses, and
other incidentals for my travel from Southern California to San Francisco, and
of course, the Court filing fee of $60.00 and $30.00 for the Court Reporter fee
Also, envelops and adhesives totaled $6.00: This should warrant a monetary
sanction‘amount of about $1,710 with ail fees and expenses included, but
given Plaintiff Reyes’ generosity, Plaintiff Reyes would only like $1,120 and
the rest to be issued to Saint Frances of Rome Catholic Church in Riverbank,

California.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 927

Ml
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is

true and correct; executed this 27" day of February, 2020, in Beverly Hills, California.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lisp Re §.

ARMANDO REYES, J.D.

DECLARATION OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES IN SUPPORT OF HIS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
STARBUCKS CORPORATION’S ILLEGAL, LATE, AND WAIVED OBJECTION MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 10PLAINTIFF REYES’

EXHIBIT 1.0Mr. ARMANDO REYES, J.D.

Legum Magister Candidate

State of California Certified Mediator
6360 Eighth Street.

Riverbank, California. 95367

Phone | 209-596-3023

Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com

BLEED

FEB 03 zoz0

os ERK OF THE COURT
. : puty Clerk

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

ARMANDO REYES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN
JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN|
HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK
GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER
FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT
CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU
(MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND
DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No.: CGC-19-574396
DISCOVERY

DATE: MARCH 24, 2020
TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)
DEPT: 302

COMPLAINT FILED: MARCH 8, 2019

2020TIME: 9:00 A.M..(PST)DEPT: 302 - 1UO

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN MENTIONED:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Armando Reyes hereby submits this
Notice of Motion to Compel Defendant Starbucks Corporation to attend the duly noticed
Deposition at a new location, at the complete discretion of Plaintiff Armando Reyes which shall
be more than 75-miles from the County of San Francisco, an Order requesting that all documents
within the noticed deposition be produced. without objection within ten (10) days after this Order,
and with authentication attachments, and a request for monetary sanctions. The hearing will be
held on March 24, 2020, at 9:00 a.m. (PST) at 400 McAllister Street. San Francisco, California.
94102, in Department 302.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Plaintiff Reyes hereby will request
that this Honorable Court award monetary sanctions for your abusive “misuse of the discovery
process” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 2023.010 and 2025.450, respectively. This will
include costs and a request of enhanced sanctions due to your pervasive discovery violations.
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, Motion for Order, Memorandum of Points and
Authorities, the attached Separate Statement in. Support, and the Declaration of Armando Reyes,
and the pleadings, papers and records on file in this action, and any further evidence and
arguments that may be filed in support of this motion or presented at the hearing on this motion.

Warmly. Submitted,

Anwtard, Rp 8.

Anmando Reyes, J.D.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES:

L INTRODUCTION:

Defendant Starbucks Corporation and its lawyer (Counsel Emily Grace Genge) display the
most disrespectful behavior that Plaintiff Reyes has ever seen. They ignore Court Orders and do
not abide by the California Discovery Act—they have recently been sanctioned for another
discovery offense. They are trying to railroad Plaintiff. Reyes’ effort to. seek justice in a court of
law by not participating in this lawful Discovery Deposition. They have engaged in bad faith |
game-playing in this discovery process and in this litigation because they ignore Plaintiff Reyes’
many good faith meet and confer letters. ‘This lawsuit alleged eight (8) causes of action, some of|
which included negligence, negligent supervision, hiring, and retention, assault, battery, among
others.

IL SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Defendant Starbucks Corporation was duly Noticed for a Deposition to, have occurred at:
1201 River Road. Ripon, California. 95366, vihich was more than 75-miles from San Francisco,
and the meeting point was to be at the Gazebo, and this Deposition was for their Person Most
Knowledgeable (as a corporate officer and NOT as.a witness) and it was to occur on January 5,
2020, at 11:00 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time). While Plaintiff Reyes was patiently waiting for
Starbucks Corporation with three folks as assistants, hours passed, and he became super
surprised when this habitual offender with its Person(s) Most Knowledgeable did not show up!
They wasted Plaintiff Reyes’ time, money, and energy in trying to obtain this lawful Discovery
evidence. The shocking part was that they did not even feign a malady condition, but they

PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION TO ATTEND THE DULY NOTICED DEPOSITION IN THE
CITY OF RIPON; A REQUEST TQ WAIVE THE 75-MILE RADIUS REQUIREMENT; ORDER TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF LAWFULLY NOTICED DOCUMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTDATE: MARCH 24,simply did not show up at all! This disgusting gamesmanship has resulted in Plaintiff Reyes to
have incurred unneeded expenses, energy, and security! to have this Deposition noticed and
fulfilled. When told via an email follow-up as to the reason that they did not show up, they
claimed ignorance--a totally fake excuse to justify their laziness and their blunt evasive tactics.
Next, Defendant Starbucks Corporation did not even bother to provide the lawful documents
requested within his Deposition notice—they totally failed to produce all of the writings and
responsive discovery queries requested via this lawful Deposition notice; they produced NO
documents whatsoever. They failed to produce such documents, despite the numerous good faith]
meet and confer attempts performed by Plaintiff Reyes via letters via the United States Postal
Service and via email. Defendant Starbucks Corporation’s complete disregard for the laws of
this State should be punished—they are not superior to this State’s legislative wisdom! It is
notable to mention that Defendant Starbucks Corporation has now (a) waived all objections to a
timely and properly served deposition notice (b) and most importantly, has allowed for the
production of all documents within the Deposition Notice. Considering that Ripon is way over
the 75-mile allotment, they have now waived any consideration to this distance, so now the
Deposition will be held in Los Angeles, after this Court Order is granted. An important fact was
that they were warmed of sanctions if this motion was filed, and notable to highlight is that they

have already been sanctioned TWICE for other illegal:discovery violations a few weeks back;

. | Plaintiff Reyes was accompanied by an off-duty California Highway Patrol Officer in the event
that Starbucks Corporation’s Emily Grace Genge tried to play her aggressive intimidation tactics, as done previousl
in her office on June 6, 2019.

I. LEGAL ARGUMENT:

Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.450(a) and (b) provide in part:

(a) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director,
managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is
a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section
2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for
inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in|
the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the
deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document,
electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(b) A motion under subdivision (a) shall comply with both of the following:

(1) The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the
production for inspection if any document, electronically stored information,
or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

(2) The motion shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under
Section 2016.040 or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition and
produce the documents, electronically stored information, or things described
in the deposition notice, by a declaration stating that the petitioner has
contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.

No separate statement is required to be filed with this-motion, pursuant to California Rule of
Court Rule 3.1345, which states in part:

“(a) Separate Statement required :
Any motion involving the content of a discovery request to such a request must be
accompanied by a separate statement. The motions that require a separate statement include
a motion: :

(1) To compel further responses to requests for admission;

(2) To compel.further responses to interrogatories;

(3) To compel further responses to a demand for inspection of documents or tangible

things; - : :
(4) To compel answers at a deposition;
(5) To compel or to quash the production of documents or tangible things at a deposition;

IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO GRANT THIS MOTION:

The Deposition Notice was properly and timely served, so thérefore good cause exists for the
production of documents. See C.C.P. § 2025.2025.450(b)(1). The Deposition was Noticed for a
location in Ripon, California, and this Corporation did not show up; they failed to make any
objections, so therefore, all potential objections are now deemed waived. Plaintiff Reyes will
suffer greatly if this order is not granted, as Defendant Starbucks Corporation and its Counsel of
Record are simply trying to outsmart him with their abusive tactics. The document requests and
the officer(s) of knowledge are so crucial to this case because they will either help collaborate hig
suspicions of negligence, or they will provide leads to this evidence. Furthermore, this is
evidence that is relevant due to the currently pled eight (8) causes of action, and due to the liberal]
discovery laws of California.

Defense counsel continues to engage in discovery abuses and gamesmanship by not
producing a single document. They have already been sanctioned twice, but unfortunately, they
have not learned their lesson; clearly, they are habitual discovery offenders! They continue to

violate their obligations under the California Discovery Act by failing and refusing to produce an}

officer who would be their Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for this deposition. To date,

Plaintiff Reyes requests that this Honorable Court order Defendant Starbucks Corporation to
attend a new deposition to be held in Los Angeles to help Plaintiff Reyes with the potential
defenses that they might have, and to gain evidence, as Defendants’ have been known for their
“objection” responses. If Plaintiff Reyes does not get this order granted, he will be severely
injured; Defendant Starbucks Corporation through its officers and with their person(s) most
knowledgeable will help in this quest, since they were at the scene of this very traumatic event
and since they have vital evidence, and will indeed assist with the jury trial that will ensue—if
they are not forced to attend, then this case will go down the toilet.

Vv. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS JUSTIFYING THE PRODUCTION OF

D NTS:

Courts have long held that “good cause” is established where there is a showing that a
request was made in good faith, and the documents sought are relevant to the subject matter and
material to the issues in the litigation. See, Associated Brewers Distributing Co. v. Sup. Ct.
(1967) 65 Cal. 2d 583, 588. If there is no legitimate claim of privilege or attorney work product,
then the moving party’s burden of showing good cause is met “simply by a fact specific of
relevance.” See, TBG Ins. Services Corp. v. Sup: Ct. (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4" 443, citing Kirkland
v. Sup. Ct. (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4" 92, 98. Here, these documents weré all very carefully
curtailed to the facts in the complaint and designed to obtain evidence for the trial that will

ensue. Since good cause has been met, the burden now shifts to the resisting party to justify why

Furthermore, the Civil Discovery Act provides litigants with the right to broad discovery.
The purpose of the discovery rules is to “enhance the truth-secking function of the litigation
process and eliminate trial strategies that focus on gamesmanship and surprise.” See Williams v.
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 1244, 1254. The discovery process
is designed to “make trial less a game of blindman’s [bluff] and more a fair contest with the basid
issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” See Greyhound Corp. v. Superior
Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 376. Plaintiff Reyes obtained NO documents from Defendant

Starbucks Corporation so this Motion should be granted, despite the generous meet and confer

deadline extensions. These discovery abuses warrant the court’s immediate intervention.
Good cause exists to order Defendant Starbucks Corporation to produce these documents

within ten (10) days after this Order is granted; if any exist.

VL GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ORDER THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT’S
PERSON(S) MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE: .

During the meet and confer process, Plaintiff Reyes advised Defendants that they waived all

objections and to produce the officers who were to be their Person(s) Most Knowledgeable for

PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION TO ATTEND THE DULY NOTICED DEPOSITION IN THE
CITY OF RIPON; A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE 75-MILE RADIUS REQUIREMENT; ORDER TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF LAWFULLY NOTICED DOCUMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTDATE: MARCH 24,
2020TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302 - 8 .the purpose of binding their testimony for trial. As mentioned in C.CP. § 2025.450(a), which
provides that after service of a deposition notice, if a party or party-affiliated witness, without
having served a valid objection under C.C.P. § 2025.410, fails to appear for examination or fails
to produce for inspection any documents described in the deposition notice, the party giving the
notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony and the
production for inspection of any document described in the deposition notice. Plaintiff Reyes
inquired about Starbucks Corporation’s Person Most Knowledgeable officer’s non-appearance,
but all he got was excuses and no legitimate reason for non-compliance with this lawful noticed
deposition. They totally ignored this notice and they totally wasted Plaintiff Reyes’ time! This
notice was served well in advance, in December 11, 2019, and no officer showed up. Again, this|
officer is required pursuant to the liberal discovery laws of California embedded within C.CP. §
2017.010. See Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal. 3d 161,
173; Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790. California
has a “strong public policy” in favor of discovery. Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1961)
56 Cal. 2d 355, 377. For discovery purposes, information is relevant if-it “might reasonably
assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for. trial, or facilitating settlement.” Gonzalez v.
Superior Court (1994) 33. Cal: App. 4th 1539, 1546 (citing Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide:
Civil Procedure Before Trial, Discovery, P 8:66.1, p. 8C-1).- Admissibility is not the test and
information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence.
Davies v. Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 291, 301. As to these requests for their Person(s)

Most Knowledgeable, this is the type of information that is merited and allowed in the liberal

Vil. MONETARY SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED:

Defendant Starbucks Corporation and Counsel Emily Grace Genge’s behavior clearly
warrants severe sanctions. They have engaged in back-stabbing, and habitual civil discovery
offenses since the beginning of this litigation; they have already been sanctioned TWICE a few
weeks back for their discovery concealment and illegal discovery conduct. They failed to appear|
at this Deposition, they failed to provide the lawful and relevant documents, and they now forced
Plaintiff Reyes to file this totally unneeded Motion to Compel. They are simply doing this to
estop Plaintiff Reyes from obtaining lawful discovery to which he is clearly entitled to, so they
must be sanctioned.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(g)(1) provides:

Ifa motion under subdivision (a) is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction
under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the
deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the
court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other
circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.

It is clear that Defendant Starbucks Corporation did not act with substantial justification
in not attending the very time intensive and expensive Deposition. The lawyer in question was
not hospitalized, the company did not go into bankruptcy, nor did this country go to war with

Iran—there are NO excuses for their illegal behavior. They are habitual civil discovery

PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION TO ATTEND THE DULY NOTICED DEPOSITION IN THE
CITY OF RIPON; A REQUEST TO WAIVE THE 75-MILE RADIUS REQUIREMENT; ORDER TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF LAWFULLY NOTICED DOCUMENTS WITHIN 10 DAYS; REQUEST FOR MONETARY
SANCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTDATE: MARCH 24,
2020TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302 - 10 .offenders and they continue to show complete disregard for the laws of the State of California.
They failed to serve any objections.and just did not show up at all! Time and time again,
Defendant Starbucks Corporation has violated the California Discovery ‘Act, and this Honorable
Court is rightful in sanctioning their conduct, or else, they will just continue with their aggressive
acts of discovery law violations—this is the best example of abuse of the discovery process, and
it is the type of behavior that the legislature wanted to sanction. ‘Unfortunately, Defendant
Starbucks Corporation did not learn its lesson when it was sanctioned a few weeks ago for
another discovery violation. Also, this Court has the power to impose sanctions under C.C.P. §
2023.030(a), which states that this Court may impose sanctions against Defendants for engaging
in the misuse of the discovery process. The court is authorized to award as sanctions the moving]
party’s reasonable expenses on this motion to compel. “Reasonable expenses” includes the time |-
the moving party’s counsel spent researching and preparing the motion, traveling to court, and
attending the hearing on the motion. Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles, 20 Cal. App. 4
252, 262 (1993).

VOI. CONCLUSION:

Based on the foregoing, the Court should grant this Motion and enter an order: (1)
compelling Defendant Starbucks Corporation to attend this duly:noticed deposition at a date and
time that is convenient to Plaintiff Armando Reyes, at a place of his choosing; (2) that the
location of the Deposition occur in Los Angeles, California, or at a place exceeding the 75-mile
requirement; (3) that Defendant Starbucks Corporation be Ordered to provide the names of the

officer(s) who are their Custodian of Records and/or-a formal designation of their Person(s) Most|_

Knowledgeable that have been identified pursuant to this noticed deposition; (4) An Order
requiring the authentication of all documents produced within this Deposition Notice; (5) An
Order requiring the production of all documents without ebjéection and within ten (10) days after
this Court Order; (6) that monetary sanctions be awarded pursuant to Plaintiff Reyes’
Declaration; and (7) for such other relief this Honorable Court deems appropriate and necessary.
Ml
Mt

Dated this 30 day of January, 2020; executed at Beverly Hills, California.
Ml

Warmly Submitted,

Armando Reyes, J.D.
Ml

PROOF OF SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MAIL
(CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2915.5; FRCP 5)

Tam a citizen of the United States and a resident of Stanislaus County; I am over the age
of eighteen years, and I am domiciled at 6360 Eighth Street. Riverbank, California. 95367. Iam
not a party to the above-entitled action. .

On January 31, 2020, I served a copy of the following documents:

On the following named person by causing an envelope to-be addressed thereto as follows, via
first-class mail, a copy of the foregoing documents enclosed and sealed therein, and said
envelope deposited in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, with postage thereon
fully prepaid addressed as follows: © . :

Attention:

Paul Caleo, SBN#: 153925/ Katrina R. Durek, SBN#: 289461/
Emily Grace Genge, SBN#: 318706 .

Burnham Brown Law Firm

P.O. Box#: 119

Oakland, California. 94604 |

I declare under penalty of perjury in accordance with the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 31, 2020
at Los Angeles, California. : me : tan :

Angelica Reyes Contreras

Legum Magister Candidate o
State of California Certified Mediator —
6360 Eighth Street.

Riverbank, California. 95367

Phone | 209-596-3023

Email: areyes.apadrc@gmail.com

ARMANDO REYES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, KEVIN
JOHNSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN
HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PATRICK
GRISMER (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER)
IN HIS PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, PETER)
FILIPOVIC (TREASURER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, SCOTT
CARTER (MANAGER) IN HIS
PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY, JEN LU
(MANAGER) IN HER PROFESSIONAL
CAPACITY, SHAUNTA MINNER, AND
DOES 2 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

2020TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302 - 1

Fab dade?

Fee 08 2020

CLERK OF THE COURT
we bahay eggs

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

Case No.: CGC-19-574396
DISCOVERY

DATE: MARCH 24, 2020
TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)

| DEPT: 302

COMPLAINT FILED: ‘MARCH 8, 2019

|TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN MENTIONED: -

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO THEIR
LAWFUL AND DULY NOTICED DEPOSITION; AND TO PRODUCE THEIR PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE PURSUANT TO THE NOTICED DEPOSITION DEMAND DATE: MARCH 24,PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Armando Reyes hereby submits this
Separate Statement in Support of his Motion to Compel Defendant Starbucks Corporation to
appear at the Deposition and to Produce Documents within the Deposition Notice.

This Rule 3.1345 statement contains the following:

(1) Plaintiff Reyes’ Document Requests.

(2) Defendant’s Response/s

(3) Plaintiff Reyes’ Reasons Why Further Responses Should be Ordered Over

Defendants’ General Objections, or in this case, complete disregard for this
request with NO objections.

As required by California Rule of Court 3.1354, Plaintiff Reyes hereby submits this Separate
Statement to Compel Defendant Starbucks Corporation to respond to his Document Requests
within his Deposition Notice. California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.210(a) provides
that upon receipt of a response to a document demand, the party demanding document
production “may move for an order compelling further response . . . if the demanding party
deems that... : (1) A statement of compliance with the demand is incomplete; (2) A
representative of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) An
objection in the response is without merit or too general.” Plaintiff Reyes’ Motion to Compel}
surfaces because Defendant Starbucks Corporation did not even respond to these queries for
Document Production, and so now they have waived any and all objections, so they MUST
now submit all documents that cortespond to these rightful queries. Also, Code of Civil

Procedure § 2025.450(a) and (b) provide in part:

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO THEIR. -
LAWFUL AND DULY NOTICED DEPOSITION; AND TO PRODUCE THEIR PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE PURSUANT TO THE NOTICED DEPOSITION DEMAND DATE: MARCH 24,
2020TIME: 9:00 A.M. (PST)DEPT: 302 - 2(@) If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director,
managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is
a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section
2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for
inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in|
the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the
deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document,
electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.

Ml .

Ml
ITEMS OR CATEGORY OF ITEMS TO BE PRODUCED FOR INSPECTION:

1. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS which identify any personal injury that has occurred at
PREMISES store from January 1, 2009 to the present.

2. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that provide cleaning schedules at PREMISES store
from the year 2009 to the present.

3. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that provide statistics of ACCUSATION calls launched
against the PREMISES store.

4. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that mention termination protocols at PREMISES store.

5. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that provide the personal injury queries relayed to the
survivors of incidents involving Starbucks Corporation’s PREMISES store.

6. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS and ESI COMMUNICATIONS that EVIDENCE
Plaintiff Reyes in any way, shape, or form, or which mention his name.

7, ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that mention IDENTIFY cleaning logs.

8. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that provide termination causes for PREMISES

employees.

SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARMANDO REYES’ MOTION TO COMPEL
DEFENDANT STARBUCKS CORPORATION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, PURSUANT TO THEIR
LAWFUL AND DULY NOTICED DEPOSITION; AND TO PRODUCE THEIR PERSON(S) MOST
KNOWLEDGEABLE PURSUANT TO THE NOTICED DEPOSITION DEMAND DATE: MARCH 24,
2020TIME: 9:00 A.M. ST)DEPT: 302 -39. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that provide incident reports for personal injuries at
PREMISES store.

10, ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING complaints launched against
DEFENDANTS.

11. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that provide incident reports for POLICE dispatch at
PREMISES store.

12, ANY AND ALL injury reports that DOCUMENT PREMISES store.

13. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that relate to ACCUSATIONS launched against
DEFENDANTS. /

14. ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC RECORDS that provide hiring statistics by year.

15. ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC RECORDS that notate slip and falls at PREMISES
store.

16. ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC RECORDS that notate COMMUNICATIONS with the
Starbucks Corporation’s personal injury department.

17. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that IDENTIFY PREMISES store’s employee’s
discipline records. ,

18. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that mention management involvement in regard to
personal injury matters at PREMISES store. °

19. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that relate to destruction of evidence-at PREMISES

store.

20. ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE relating to destruction of evidence at
PREMISES store. ,

21. ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE relating to ACCUSATIONS launched
against Defendant Shaunta Minner. .

22, ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC RECORDS relating to Defendant Scott Carter’s ability
and fitness to perform. : |

23. ANY AND ALL ELECTRONIC RECORDS relating to Defendant Jen Lu’s ability to
perform as a manager.

24. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that notate the training obtained by the manager on duty|
in reference to personal injury matters.

25. ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS that reference all legal settlements from PREMISES
store from the year 2009 to the pre

Case Info

Judge

Ethan P. Schulman Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

March 04, 2020

Case Filing Date

March 08, 2019

County

Parties

CALEO, PAUL D Attorney
CALEO, PAUL D Attorney for the Defendant
CARTER, SCOTT Defendant
CARTER, SCOTT Respondent
DOES 1 TO 20 Defendant
FILIPOVIC, PETER Defendant
GRISMER, PATRICK Defendant
JOHNSON, KEVIN Defendant
LU, JEN Defendant
LU, JEN Respondent
MINNER, SHAUNTA Defendant
Pro Per Attorney for the Appellant
Pro Per Attorney for the Plaintiff
REYES, Appellant
REYES, Plaintiff
REYES, ARMANDO Appellant
REYES, ARMANDO Plaintiff
STARBUCKS CORPORATION Defendant
STARBUCKS CORPORATION Respondent
Katrina Durek Attorney
Emily Genge Attorney
Steven Blum Attorney
Tom Chen Attorney
Jacob Partiyeli Attorney
Steven Stein Attorney
Seana Azad Attorney
Aneiko Hickerson Attorney
Su Li Attorney
Martin Green Attorney
Katherine Gallo Attorney
David Lane Attorney

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: ARMANDO REYES VS. STARBUCKS CORPORATION ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties