On August 07, 2023 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Dykstra, Precious T,
and
Broesel, Erich,
Hand, Aaron,
Henry, Steve,
Hughes, James,
Karger, Jason,
Lyon, Michael,
Ollis, David,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
\a
F
'
"
W .~ v.
i "u;
BLANK ROME LLP ,aitjffrzlon
.
(:0ng
{Lasyvogcpfln
61,; ‘
,'-;-j;‘{g~z,,II?2V:;.
"_
l
Cheryl S. Chang (SBN 237098) ‘
”M $5M!“
chery1.chang@blankrome.com “PF,
Joseph M. Welch (SBN 259308) “p 5;
KO}?
joseph.we1ch@blankrome.com {1"
2029 Century Park East 6th Floorl
_
wiri‘“? "It“wg‘iq-q. gr
Los Angeles, CA 90067 SKA Iv}
N HLI‘ULZ-CAST‘Pfi'FJpT...
Telephone: 424.239.3400
‘
.
.4: Um
OOOQONM-PWN—
Facsimile: 424.239.3434
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PRECIOUS T. DYKSTRA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
PRECIOUS T. DYKSTRA, an individual, Case No. CIVSB23 1 8301
Plaintiff, [Honorable Gilbert G. Ochoa, Dept. 524-
SBJC ]
vs.
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WELCH
MICHAEL LYON, an individual, DAVID OLLIS, INSUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
an individual, ERICH BROESEL, an individual, CERTAIN RECORDS INCLUDED IN
STEVE HENRY, an individual, JASON KARGER, PLAINTIFF PRECIOUS T. DYKSTRA’S
an individual, JAMES HUGHES, an individual, and SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN
AARON HAND, an individual, SUPPORT OF HER OPPOSITION
BRIEF TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
NNNNNNNNNr—At—tr—IH—dp—tr—tr—tr—AH
Defendants, TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO
THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD
H
i
OTV INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a Nevada DATE:
‘5 OO\IO\M#UJNHO\OOOQO\UI#UJNHO
limited liability company, and OAK TREE TIME:
QR MOUNTAIN LLC, a Nevada limited liability DEPT.: N 1 5
company,
[Filed Concurrently With Supplemental
Nominal Defendants. Evidence in Support of Precious T. Dykstra’s
Motion to Seal]
Complaint Filed: 08/07/2023
Trial Date: N/A
16695 1 .00601/1 35 l 20940v.4
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WELCH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
I, Joseph M. Welch, declare as follows:
1. I am over 18 years of age. I am a partner at Blank Rome LLP, counsel for Plaintiff
AWN Precious T. Dykstra (“Plaintiff’ or “Ms. Dykstra”). I make this Declaration of my own knowledge
of the facts stated herein, based on my handling of this matter and in conjunction with my
colleagues.
2. Ms. Dykstra is submitting Supplemental Evidence in Support of Her Opposition (the
\DOO\IO\UI
“Supplemental Evidence”) to Defendants’ Motion t0 Quash the Subpoena Issued by Ms. Dykstra t0
the California Franchise Tax Board.
3. The Supplemental Evidence consists of Defendant Michael Lyon’s mobile cellphone
10 records from June 2019 through February 2024, provided by Verizon Wireless Services, LLC
11 (“Verizon”) as well as records obtained from DocuSign, Inc. relating to the geolocation where Mr.
12 Lyon electronically signed several pleadings and motions in the concurrent action pending in Clark
13 County, Nevada.
14 4. Ms. Dykstra requests in her motion that the Supplemental Evidence and all filings
15 therewith be sealed as Ms. Dykstra believes that Defendants may seek to designate the records as
16 “Confidential” pursuant to a Stipulated Protective Order, which the parties continue to negotiate
17 and have not entered into yet.
18 5. The parties have been unable to agree upon the scope of the Stipulated Protective
19 Order as of the filing of this declaration and continue to negotiate. Specifically, Defendants do not
20 wish to include language that would allow for the disclosure of material designated as
21 “Confidential” to governmental agencies. Ms. Dykstra believes that such a position is improper but
22 is considering Mr. Lyon’s position that she may disclose such information to the government only
23 upon affirmative government request. A true and correct copy of email correspondence between
24 counsel relating to the Stipulated Protective Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
25 6. As part 0f the negotiations for the Stipulated Protective Order, Ms. Dykstra has
26 requested that the subpoena to the California Franchise Tax Board be subject t0 same. However, at
27 the most recent IDC and in continued negotiations over the Stipulated Protective Order, Defendants,
28 through counsel, have refused to agree t0 this provision.
16695 l .0060 1/ l 35 1 20940V.4 1
DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WELCH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL
Document Filed Date
April 15, 2024
Case Filing Date
August 07, 2023
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
\a F ' " W .~ v. i "u; BLANK ROME LLP ,aitjffrzlon . (:0ng {Lasyvogcpfln 61,; ‘ ,'-;-j;‘{g~z,,II?2V:;. "_ l Cheryl S. Chang (SBN 237098) ‘ ”M $5M!“ chery1.chang@blankrome.com “PF, Joseph M. Welch (SBN 259308) “p 5; KO}? joseph.we1ch@blankrome.com {1" 2029 Century Park East 6th Floorl _ wiri‘“? "It“wg‘iq-q. gr Los Angeles, CA 90067 SKA Iv} N HLI‘ULZ-CAST‘Pfi'FJpT... Telephone: 424.239.3400 ‘ . .4: Um OOOQONM-PWN— Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Attorneys for Plaintiff PRECIOUS T. DYKSTRA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER PRECIOUS T. DYKSTRA, an individual, Case No. CIVSB23 1 8301 Plaintiff, [Honorable Gilbert G. Ochoa, Dept. 524- SBJC ] vs. DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WELCH MICHAEL LYON, an individual, DAVID OLLIS, INSUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL an individual, ERICH BROESEL, an individual, CERTAIN RECORDS INCLUDED IN STEVE HENRY, an individual, JASON KARGER, PLAINTIFF PRECIOUS T. DYKSTRA’S an individual, JAMES HUGHES, an individual, and SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN AARON HAND, an individual, SUPPORT OF HER OPPOSITION BRIEF TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION NNNNNNNNNr—At—tr—IH—dp—tr—tr—tr—AH Defendants, TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED TO THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD H i OTV INVESTMENT GROUP LLC, a Nevada DATE: ‘5 OO\IO\M#UJNHO\OOOQO\UI#UJNHO limited liability company, and OAK TREE TIME: QR MOUNTAIN LLC, a Nevada limited liability DEPT.: N 1 5 company, [Filed Concurrently With Supplemental Nominal Defendants. Evidence in Support of Precious T. Dykstra’s Motion to Seal] Complaint Filed: 08/07/2023 Trial Date: N/A 16695 1 .00601/1 35 l 20940v.4 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WELCH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL I, Joseph M. Welch, declare as follows: 1. I am over 18 years of age. I am a partner at Blank Rome LLP, counsel for Plaintiff AWN Precious T. Dykstra (“Plaintiff’ or “Ms. Dykstra”). I make this Declaration of my own knowledge of the facts stated herein, based on my handling of this matter and in conjunction with my colleagues. 2. Ms. Dykstra is submitting Supplemental Evidence in Support of Her Opposition (the \DOO\IO\UI “Supplemental Evidence”) to Defendants’ Motion t0 Quash the Subpoena Issued by Ms. Dykstra t0 the California Franchise Tax Board. 3. The Supplemental Evidence consists of Defendant Michael Lyon’s mobile cellphone 10 records from June 2019 through February 2024, provided by Verizon Wireless Services, LLC 11 (“Verizon”) as well as records obtained from DocuSign, Inc. relating to the geolocation where Mr. 12 Lyon electronically signed several pleadings and motions in the concurrent action pending in Clark 13 County, Nevada. 14 4. Ms. Dykstra requests in her motion that the Supplemental Evidence and all filings 15 therewith be sealed as Ms. Dykstra believes that Defendants may seek to designate the records as 16 “Confidential” pursuant to a Stipulated Protective Order, which the parties continue to negotiate 17 and have not entered into yet. 18 5. The parties have been unable to agree upon the scope of the Stipulated Protective 19 Order as of the filing of this declaration and continue to negotiate. Specifically, Defendants do not 20 wish to include language that would allow for the disclosure of material designated as 21 “Confidential” to governmental agencies. Ms. Dykstra believes that such a position is improper but 22 is considering Mr. Lyon’s position that she may disclose such information to the government only 23 upon affirmative government request. A true and correct copy of email correspondence between 24 counsel relating to the Stipulated Protective Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 25 6. As part 0f the negotiations for the Stipulated Protective Order, Ms. Dykstra has 26 requested that the subpoena to the California Franchise Tax Board be subject t0 same. However, at 27 the most recent IDC and in continued negotiations over the Stipulated Protective Order, Defendants, 28 through counsel, have refused to agree t0 this provision. 16695 l .0060 1/ l 35 1 20940V.4 1 DECLARATION OF JOSEPH WELCH IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL