Preview
180V326918
DECSUP
Declaraiion: In Support
11111111111111
KEVIN C. BEDOLLA, ESQ. (SBN 74132)
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN C. BEDOLLA
95 South Market Street,
San Jose, California 951 13
Suite 300
HLED
Telephone: (408) 3 1 3-981 7
Email: kcbcdol]afdsbcglobal.nct FEB l 3 2019
Pro Per cw
> nI-I.
.‘
SWCoundCACoMtyovsmau
5" A 0mm.
.0
1‘.
1.
FHi/‘Ji; I
r
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
lO
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
KEVIN C. BEDOLLA, Case No.: 18-CV-325918
11
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KEVIN C.
BEDOLLA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
l3
vs. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
l4 LIL, INC., a California Non—Profit Date: February l3, 2019
Corporation, ADAM WANG, an individual, Time: 8:30 a.m.
15 JENNIFER WANG, an individual, Does 1- Dept: 9
20, inclusive,
l6
Defendants.
l7
18 I,Kevin C. Bedolla, declare:
19 1. I am both the Plaintiff in this matter and acting in pro per. I am seeking to
2O continue the date for the hearing of Defendants’ Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 motion
[“Anti-SLAPP”]. The hearing is currently set for March 7, 2019. I am requesting that the
21
22
hearing be continued until May 15, 2019.
23
2. The reason I am seeking the continuance is so that I can prepare an adequate
defense to the Anti-SLAPP motion.
24
3. On October 23, 2018, the court authorized essentially three areas of discovery;
25
(1) LIL’s bank records that showed payments to Defendants, Adam Wang (“Adam”) and
26
Jennifer Zheng/Wang (“Jennifer”) [together the “Wangs”], (2) copies of all emails sent and
27
received between me and the Wangs between January 1, 2013 and the present [Notez There
28
l
Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla
inSupport ofEx Pane Motion for Continuance
have hardly been any exchanges the past 2 years.], and (3) the depositions of Adam and
Jennifer.
4. The bank records [from the Bank of America] were finally delivered t0 me on
February 7, 2019. Numbering 2,265 pages, I am in the process of reviewing and analyzing
what has been produced so that I can incorporate portions into an efficient deposition of
Adam and Jennifer. The bank records were subpoenaed in August 2018 and have been “0n
hold” due t0 the Defendants’ unsuccessful motion t0 quash. While the motion t0 quash was
heard on October 23, 2018, the court order permitting that discovery was not issued and filed
until Friday, December 21, 2018. A related protective order was not filed until January 3,
lO 2019. [Notez The Court’s order 0n the discovery motion was served on my PO Box' instead
ll 0f the address I provided for this case. Hopefully, this will be corrected with my recent filing
12 of a Notice of Change of Address]
13 5. The emails exchanged between the Wangs and me that the Court ordered
l4 produced in October 201 8 were not produced until late in the afternoon 0f Friday, February 1,
15 2019. What was produced was “in the cloud” and required a considerable amount 0f effort to
l6 open. It took my e-discovery expert, Phillip Moon (“Moon”), over ‘/2hour to download the
l7 emails from “the cloud.” Itthen took Moon another approximately 3O — 45 minutes to figure-
18 out how to overcome obstacles t0 his opening the files. When one of the files was finally
l9 opened it was essentially worthless. Attached to my Declaration as Exhibit 2 is a sample of
20 that email string — how itwas produced by Defendants and as it isfound on my computer.
21 6. Defendants produced in excess 0f 17,400 pages that were part 0f the exchange
22 0f emails. This greatly exaggerates the situation. Recently I closely examined every email
23 exchanged between me and the Wangs that are found on my own computer. This took about
24 5 hours. I finally determined that there were approximately 1,900 emails on my computer that
25 l
I use my PO Box as my State Bar address and have used it for many years for my activities as a
court neutral. Court clerks in other cases as well as this case sometimes pick this up and
26 accidentally serve me at my PO Box with case matters. That is what happened in this case — note
it is addressed to “Neutral Kevin C. Bedolla.” [Bedolla Exhibit 1] I do not check my PO Box daily.
27 Consequently, I did not pick-up the Court’s order until the end of the year. I contacted the court
right after the New Year and “hand-carried” the related Confidentiality Order so that it was filed
28 by January 3.
2
Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla in Support of Ex
Pane Motion forContinuance
I had exchanged with the Wangs over a 4+ year period, the majority during the 19 month
period I represented LIL in Alameda County Superior Court Case entitled LIL vs. Mi, et. al.,
RG 11602685 (“Alameda Case”) [August 2013 to March 2015]. I further analyzed the
content of the emails and, having some memory of many of these exchanges, determined that,
at most, fewer than 100 emails are missing.
7. The only reason I sought the order for the Defendants copies of those emails
was because my email service, Yahoo, appears t0 have lost some of them. Since there was no
confidentiality issue with respect t0 these emails, all Defendants had t0 d0 was forward each
email to me in chronological order.
10 8. During the Alameda Case, Adam was sanctioned by Judge Appel on 3
ll different occasions for discovery violations that included monetary sanctions [Note: There
12 were actually 6 different negative discovery orders]. The monetary sanctions totaled more
13 than $4,000.00.
14 9. Another time during the Alameda Case, in response t0 a document demand that
15 included Excel Spread Sheets, Adam personally prepared the documents, including the
16 electronic Bates Stamping. There were about 15,000 — 20,000 pages of actual documents,
17 including about 15 Excel Spread Sheets. Adam manipulated the Excel Spread Sheets so that
18 each page, including each blank page, was also produced. Adam bragged about this to me.
19 This expanded the production by about 76,000 pages per Excel Spread Sheet. Consequently,
20 a document production that should have been only about 15,000 — 20,000 pages was well over
21 1,000,000 pages.
22 10. In Santa Clara County Superior Court Case 1—15-CV-280180 (“Collection
23 Case”) that is the basis for this current action for malicious prosecution, Adam was found to
24 have violated discovery statutes and was even admonished by Judge Williams about his
discovery habitsz Exhibit 3 Quoting part of her order, Judge Williams stated: “there is sort
25
26 of a sense on the court’s part of perception that Mr. Wang views the discovery process as
27
28 2
Exhibit 3 ispart of the transcript of my CCP 128.5 motion in the Collection Case.
§
3
Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla
inSupport of Bx Parte Motion for Continuance
‘hold it back until the last moment’ and to not provide discovery...” Exhibit 4, Pg: 5, Ln:
15-18
11. Adam has lied t0 a Federal Court judge. In the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No: ll-CV-Ol 189-LHK, the
Honorable Lucy Koh ruled that a declaration Mr. Wang had made to remain in the case “was
not entirely truthful” and that the court did not “credit [Mr. Wang’s] declaration.” Judge
Koh’s order further stated: “Even more disturbing is the evidence on the record of Wang’s
willingness t0 use confidential information he gained from the preliminary consultation with
Perfect Day t0 Plaintiff’ sadvantage in this litigation.” Exhibit 5
10 12. Of very recent vintage, Adam once again proved he is “truth challenged.” In
ll his recent disciplinary action before the State Bar,3 he was facing some very serious charges.
12 In November 2018, Adam stipulated to a 1-year suspension [90-days actual]. Exhibit 6
l3 Despite the serious nature 0f the charges, during the proceedings Adam sent the State Bar a
l4 fee agreement that was different from the one that was at issue, representing to the State Bar
15 that it was genuine. Exhibit 6, Aggravating Circumstances, Pg: l4 In other words, he lied
l6 to the State Bar.
17 13. Icannot take effective and efficient depositions of the Wangs until I have had
l8 the opportunity t0 review the bank records and the emails. The reason is so I can prepare
l9 portions of those documents as deposition exhibits. The bank records arrived February 7,
20 2019. The emails this Court ordered to be provided to Plaintiff last October have yet to be
21 provided in the manner order — as exchanged.
22 14. The Wangs have always had an easy way to provide me with the emails. Since
23 there was no confidentiality issue with respect to these emails, all Defendants had to do was
24 forward each email tome in chronological order — furthest back in time to the most recent.
25 15. I estimate that it will take about a week to ten days after receipt of all the
26 emails ordered produced in a usable format before I will be properly prepared to take the
27 Wangs depositions. Once the Wangs have been deposed, they will have up to 30 days to
28 3
State Bar of California Case Number 16-O-14942-PEM
4
Declaration ot‘Kevin C. Bedolla
inSupport of Ex Pane Motion for Continuance
review and make changes to their depositions. While this can be shorten ifthe Wangs quickly
review their depositions, make changes, and verify them, Adam’s well documented history 0f
playing discovery games gives no assurance he will cooperate in expediting matters. Even if
the transcripts are expedited by my court reporter [which they will be], itwill likely take at
least 40 days“ for verified transcripts to be delivered to me.
16. The Defendants “generously” offered to be available for their depositions from
February 12-15. The hearing for the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion is set for March 7,
2019. My response is due 9 court days before or February 22, 2019. Assuming the
depositions were taken on February l4, even if the transcripts were expedited, they would not
10 be ready until about February 21 and the Defendants would not have had the chance to review
ll them, much less correct and verify them.
12 17. Defendants” counsel has stated that they will waive having the Wangs verify
l3 their depositions. This is either potential malpractice or meaningless. The fact that ittook the
14 Defendants over three months to produce the emails is evidence enough to not rely on their
15 promises. Further, if there is an egregious error, the Wangs will testify that they did not mean
16 what the court reporter recorded or seek a court order permitting a change. As an excuse they
17 could claim they did not have the opportunity to review and verify their deposition to avoid
18 the consequences of their testimony. Or the judge or jury will hold an honest mistake against
19 them. Since both of the Wangs are Chinese natives, the chances of there being a transcription
2O error is greater than normal. Finally, there is also the possibility that the court reporter might
21 make a mistake in transcribing the question making the exchange either meaningless or
22 damning to the Defendants.
23 18. This is the third case involving me and the Defendants. Everything started
24 with the Alameda Case. Adam represented LIL, himself, and Jennifer, for approximately the
25 first 21+ months of the Alameda Case. In August 2013, I replaced Adam as counsel for LIL
26
27 4
The 40 day estimate assumes the expedited transcript is available within 7 days. A deponent is
generally notified by mail. This adds 5 days to the process. The deponent then has 35 days from
28 the date of the notice t0 make changes and execute the verification.
5
Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla
inSupport ofEx Pane Motion for Continuance
and William McLean5 0f Thoits Law took over from Adam representing Adam and Jennifer —
both Adam and Jennifer had been sued individually in a cross-complaint. Irepresented LIL
for 19 months in the Alameda Case and was replaced after LIL refused t0 pay his fees and
costs. Mr. McLean continued to represent Adam and Jennifer until the case settled about a
year later, in early 2016.
19. In May 2015, I filed the Collection Case t0 get paid for my fees and costs
representing LIL in the Alameda Case. Early in the Collection Case, I sought and was
granted a prejudgment writ of attachment. The motion was unopposed. Despite this, Adam
filed a cross-complaint against me 0n behalf of LIL setting forth four (4) causes 0f action;
10 Breach of fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Breach of Contract, and Unjust Enrichment. During
ll discovery LIL produced no evidence to support any of its claims.
12 20. The only “evidence” Adam produced at trial for LIL was his claim that I
13 should have settled the Alameda Case four (4) months after taking over from Adam. This was
14 absurd for several reasons, including the fact that Mr. McLean handled a_ll settlement
15 negotiations for LIL, Adam, and Jennifer while I was involved in the Alameda Case.6
l6 Predictably, the jury awarded me everything I asked for and found against LIL on its cross-
l7 complaint.
18 21. I need a continuance because the Defendants did not produce court ordered
19 discovery timely and in a usable format and that other court authorized third party discovery
20 was not processed and delivered to the Plaintiff until February 7, 2019. Some of these
21 documents will be included as exhibits in the Court ordered depositions of Adam and
22 Jennifer. Consequently, l have not been able to take those depositions, much less obtain
23
verified transcripts. I need to receive verified copies of the Wangs depositions before I can
24
incorporate any of itinto my opposition.
25
26
5
I brought Mr. McLean into the Alameda Case at the request of Adam.
27 6
The reason Mr. McLean handled all settlement talks was that at that time the relationship
between opposing counsel and me was strained. We had sued each other after the break-up of our
28 law firm several years before. Since then the wounds have healed.
6
Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla
inSupport of Ex Parte Motion for Continuance
22. I have not caused the delays. The delay in obtaining the emails is solely the
fault of Defendants. The Defendants knew at the hearing on October 23, 2018 that they were
to send to me copies of all emails exchanged between them and me. Confidentiality was not
an issue because each of the parities had already seen every email. Effort was not an issue
because the task takes about 10 — 15 minutes per computer to download them all. In the
alternative, it would take a clerk about 10 — 11 hours to forward them t0 me. Instead,
Defendants manipulated their emails into an unwanted format that is useless without the use
of a previously undisclosed program, Bates Stamped them all, and did not produce them until
late afternoon on Friday, February l, 2019.
10 23. The delay in obtaining the Bank of America records is due to the delay in
11 obtaining two relevant court orders so that the subpoena could be processed. The subpoena
12 service submitted the court order authorizing the discovery on January 7, 2019. The
l3 documents were finally delivered to Plaintiff on February 7, 2019.
l4 24. On February 8, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants’ attorney, Joseph
15 O’Neil, suggesting the parties stipulate to a continuance of the Anti-SLAPP motion. Exhibit
16 7 O’Neil has not responded to the suggestion, forcing Plaintiff to file this motion.
17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
18 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February LL, 2019.
19 KEVIN C. BEDOLLA
2O
21
22
23
By:
WM
Kevid Bedolla, Pro Per
24
25
26
27
28
7
Declaration of Kevin C. Bcdolla in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Continuance
Exhibit 1
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE
191NORTH FIRST STREET
SAN JOSE, CALIFQRMA 95113
CIVIL DIVISION
Neutral Kevin C. Bedolla
PO Box 61 1 175
San Jose CA 95161-1175
RE: Kevin Bedolla vs Adam Wang et al
Case Number: 1BCV32591 8
PROOF OF SERVICE
ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER;
PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION
425.16, SUBDIVISION (g) was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forthin the
sworn declaration below.
Ifyou, a partyrepresented by you,or a witnessto be calledon behalf of thatpartyneed an accommodation under the American with
Disabilities
Act, please contact theCourt office
Administrator’s at(408) 882-2700. or use the Court’sTDD tine(408) 882-2690 or the
Voice/TDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: |declare thatIserved thisnoticeby enclosinga true copyina sealed envelope. addressedto
each person whose name isshown betow, and by depositing the envelope San Jose,
with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at
CA on December 21, 2018. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Stacie Marshali, Deputy.
cc: Chris A Tarkington Tarkington ONeiIi etal 201 Mission Street Suite 710 San Francisco CA 94105
cw<9027 REV 12/03/16 PROOF OF SERVICE
Exhibit 2
126636
7315
Delivered-To: adamqwang@gmail.com
Received: by 10.182.32.70 with SMTP id g6csp781139obi;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:18:28 -0888 (PST)
X-Received: by 16.55.81.65 with SMTP id f62mr4653256qkb.278.1479399568896;
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:18:28 ~0800 (PST)
Return—Path:
Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
(mail-bn3nam010n0081.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.33.81])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z7sill45661qtz.89.2016.11.17.08.18.28
for
(version=TLSl_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AE5128-SHA bits=128/128);
Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:18:28 -0800 (PST)
Received—SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kbedolla@wagedefenders.net designates
104.47.33.81 as permitted sender) c1ient—ip=104.47.33.81;
Authentication-Results: mx.goog1e.com;
dkim=pass header.i=@NETORGS46588.onmicrosoft.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of kbedolla@wagedefenders.net designates
104.47.33.81 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=KBedol1a@wagedefenders.net
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=NETORGS46588.onmicrosoft.com; s=se1ector1-wagedefenders-net;
h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version;
bh:kXFV6200wt181Rd/33XfrUj9NpBgAKqFVhN0mcU2615=;
b=Mx/YgKSS/4j/wImODJvhiHVzXovaE3thqHuy8YcVn3beGZanRioZ6ng0aLSrzj+km3wAGDprHeer/
SZhabesluJmthlokpRJdlhByys723thFeZsk/LszZ1th+b48c3g/q098lwuXTYWLaUdVyriJsz7LBK
chD0=
Received: from BN6PR10MB1490.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (10.173.31.8) by
BN6PR10M81491.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (10.173.31.9) with Microsoft SMTP
Server (version=TLSl_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id
15.1.721.10; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:18:25 +0000
Received: from BN6PR10M81490.namprd10.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.31.8]) by
BN6PR10M81490.namprd10.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.31.8]) with mapi id
15.01.0721.015; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:18:25 +0000
From: "Kevin Bedolla"
To: Adam Wang
Subject: RE: Bedolla vs LIL
Thread-Topic: Bedolla vs LIL
Thread—Index: AdJAvaIDYr7VCGOSsG4yFT73/P1iAADs+kAAABDq3A=
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:18:25 +0000
Message-ID:
References:
In—Reply-To: <2B3A37A1—C2B1-45DD-A209-1958A4E070CF@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en—US
Page 1
126036
X-MS-Has—Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is )
smtp.mai1From=KBedolla@wagedefenders.net;
x-originating-ip: [96.95.204.193]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics:
1;BN6PR16M81491;72erlOUxJu91i4e74Fx9FlzthsztvFpS7x+4OL68kx8qSNI9ASqus1Q429vaK9T
AEBzIppyNijS/ltRJKZ19ngHW8pG7uRj60rc4nHdeQ/8mep+9seOTZQBpsleYZNVthvZCIkRGOSPrG
pc4SQSxeiDZserfs7p/2chE9wf8qhbc9c6abePh4JpwalBPBCMsoCvaVZyipBlDCebi1yrFT6qM3VKSf
mWijJ7K8QVc10XN6T8deF6Y0cDuPJlPZjnlshSwt7FMdWLJTLZdr207anMHVeuLle47Q/ceYSilZIl6N
pAWiBOmIpbnmUuGIvagDBfBQjUz4thAcLIPYPmOVS7A=
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1becad1d-31a5—4ee4-1616-68d46f655bfb
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:3BCL:0;PCL:6;RULEID:(22091);SRVRzBN6PR10M81491;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvsz
x-exchange-antispam-report—test: UriScanz;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test:
BCL:65PCL:0;RULEID:(6068326)(6046281)(601904)(2461047)(5005096)(8121501946)(10201501
046)(3902961)(6961324)(6941223)(6043646);SRVR:BN6PR16MBI49138CL26;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR
:BN6PR10M81491;
x—forefront-prvs: 01294F87SB
x-forefront-antispam-report:
SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10669020)(6699061)(7916862)(377454693)(199003)(24454902)(189862)(13464
963)(8e792995)(33656692)(5963630169991)(119136993)(87936691)(7696994)(75576991)(5669
399991)(2999199991)(29seleeeez)(97736694)(7116993)(54356999)(4se1eeee1)(92566962)(14
11691)(76176999)(9686692)(395945965)(2966662)(8676eez)(3846662)(77696695)(162836003)
(7846662)(161416001)(50986999)(167886002)(6116962)(229853962)(66066661)(3286760602)(
122556062)(6916009)(8936062)(165586962)(99286902)(86362661)(189998661)(81156014)(687
36067)(166356991)(3666760061)(7736602)(81166066)(6596983)(3489788604)(74316902);DIR:
OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:BN6PR16M814913H:BN6PR18MBl498.namprd10.prod.outlook.com;FPR:
;SPF:None3PTR:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1;LANGzen;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: wagedefenders.net does not
designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content—Type: text/plain; charset="us—ascii"
Content-Transfer—Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.8
X-OriginatorOrg: wagedefenders.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Nov 2616 16:18:25.7126
(UTC)
X-MS~Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 23eaaeaf-35c8-46a5-b525-24a8b54ef99d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport—CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR19M81491
Mr. Wang;
What dates are you available for the document inspection? Pick 3 dates wit:
Page 2
126636
h times between November 19 and 25, including weekends.
Kevin Bedolla=20
Kevin C. Bedolla
95 S. Market St. Suite 360
San Jose, Ca. 95113-2356
Cell: 468-313-9817
Office: 468-995-3272
Fax: 408-995—3274
kbedolla@wagedefenders.net
The information in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and:
protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any diss:
emination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think tha:
t you have received this e—mail message in error, please e-mail the sender =
and delete the copies. Thank you. =26
=29
----- Original Message—-—--
From: Adam Wang [mailto:adamqwang@gmail.com]=29
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2616 8:15 AM
To: Kevin Bedolla
Subject: Re: Bedolla vs LIL
Please serve your notice for depo. Also, please confirm the date you are co=
ming for doc inspection.=29
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 17, 2616, at 6:44 AM, Kevin Bedolla w=
rote:
>=26
> Mr. Wang
>=20
> I noticed that you faxed to me the response to my motion to compel. The =
responsive papers are required to be served and filed nine court days befor=
e the hearing. [CCP 1665] Since the court is closed on both intervening we:
ekends and on Thanksgiving and the day after, the papers were due on Monday:
November 14. The time and date stamp on your fax indicates they were serv=
ed today. While the court is free to consider your late filing, itIis also:
free to ignore it.
>=20
> I want confirmed dates for the depositions of you and Jennifer in mid—Dec:
ember by today. If not, I will be forced to file an ex parte motion to com:
pel attendance.
> Kevin Bedolla
> Kevin C. Bedolla
Page 3
126036
95 S. Market St. Suite 366
San Jose, Ca. 95113-2356
Cell: 498-313-9817
VVVVVV
Office: 468-995—3272
Fax: 408-995-3274
kbedolla@wagedefenders.net
> The information in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, a=
nd protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any di=
ssemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think t:
hat you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sende:
r and delete the copies. Thank you.
>=20
>=20
>=26
>=26
>=Ze
>
date-1ast-viewed
e
date-received
1479399508
flags
8596195717
gmai1-label—ids
358
4
remote-id
317636
Page 4
u
Kevin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mr. Wang;
Cell:
Bedolla
What dates
Kevin Bedolla
Kevin
95 S.
C.
are you available for the
including weekends.
Bedolla
Market
The information
-----
Original
From:
St. Suite 300
San Jose, Ca. 95113-2350
408-313-9817
Office: 408—995-3272
Fax: 408-995-3274
kbedolIa@wagedefenders.net
intended recipient,
Kevin Bedolla
Thursday,
Adam Wang
November
RE: Bedolla vs LIL
document inspection?
17, 2016 8:18
in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential,
Message--—--
Adam Wang [mailto:adamqwang@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday,
Subject:
November
Re: Bedolla vs LIL
17, 2016 8:15
To: Kevin Bedolla
Please serve your notice for depo. Also,
AM
AM
Pick 3 dates with times between November 19 and
and protected from disclosure.
any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
this e—mail message in error, please e-mail the sender and delete
the copies. Thank you.
please confirm the date you are coming for doc inspection.
25,
If you are not the
If you think that you have received
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Kevin Bedolla wrote:
>
> Mr. Wang
>
> noticed that you faxed to me
l
the response to my motion to compel. The responsive papers are required to be served
and filednine court days before the hearing. [CCP 1005] Since the court is closed on both intervening weekends
and on
Thanksgiving and the day after, the papers were due on Monday November 14. The time and date stamp on your fax
indicates they were served today. While the court isfree to consider your late also free to ignore
filing, it is it.
>
> want confirmed dates for the depositions of you and Jennifer mid-December by today.
l
in ifnot, will be forced to
I
file
an ex parte motion to compel attendance.
> Kevin Bedolla
> Kevin C. Bedolla
> 95 S. Market St. Suite 300
> San Jose, Ca. 95113—2350
> Cell:408-313-9817
> Office: 4088953272
> Fax: 408-995-3274
> kbedolla@wagedefenders.net
> The information in thise-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying isstrictlyprohibited. Ifyou think that you have
received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender and delete the copies. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Exhibit 3
fiKevin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kevin,
None
locate
The
We
Bedolla
of the emails
them
files
each email
only
This
Norman
we
Tarkington,
L.
again.
in
Norman Chong
Friday,
Kevin
JOSEPH
included emails (including attachments)
was not
A Professional
201 Mission
San Francisco,
Tel:
Fax:
(415)
(415)
a simple task.
Chong
O’Neill,
Street,
This communication
Barrack
Corporation
Suite
CA 94105
777-5501
546-4962
is
Preview
180V326918 DECSUP Declaraiion: In Support 11111111111111 KEVIN C. BEDOLLA, ESQ. (SBN 74132) LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN C. BEDOLLA 95 South Market Street, San Jose, California 951 13 Suite 300 HLED Telephone: (408) 3 1 3-981 7 Email: kcbcdol]afdsbcglobal.nct FEB l 3 2019 Pro Per cw > nI-I. .‘ SWCoundCACoMtyovsmau 5" A 0mm. .0 1‘. 1. FHi/‘Ji; I r SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA lO COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA KEVIN C. BEDOLLA, Case No.: 18-CV-325918 11 12 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KEVIN C. BEDOLLA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE l3 vs. MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE l4 LIL, INC., a California Non—Profit Date: February l3, 2019 Corporation, ADAM WANG, an individual, Time: 8:30 a.m. 15 JENNIFER WANG, an individual, Does 1- Dept: 9 20, inclusive, l6 Defendants. l7 18 I,Kevin C. Bedolla, declare: 19 1. I am both the Plaintiff in this matter and acting in pro per. I am seeking to 2O continue the date for the hearing of Defendants’ Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 motion [“Anti-SLAPP”]. The hearing is currently set for March 7, 2019. I am requesting that the 21 22 hearing be continued until May 15, 2019. 23 2. The reason I am seeking the continuance is so that I can prepare an adequate defense to the Anti-SLAPP motion. 24 3. On October 23, 2018, the court authorized essentially three areas of discovery; 25 (1) LIL’s bank records that showed payments to Defendants, Adam Wang (“Adam”) and 26 Jennifer Zheng/Wang (“Jennifer”) [together the “Wangs”], (2) copies of all emails sent and 27 received between me and the Wangs between January 1, 2013 and the present [Notez There 28 l Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla inSupport ofEx Pane Motion for Continuance have hardly been any exchanges the past 2 years.], and (3) the depositions of Adam and Jennifer. 4. The bank records [from the Bank of America] were finally delivered t0 me on February 7, 2019. Numbering 2,265 pages, I am in the process of reviewing and analyzing what has been produced so that I can incorporate portions into an efficient deposition of Adam and Jennifer. The bank records were subpoenaed in August 2018 and have been “0n hold” due t0 the Defendants’ unsuccessful motion t0 quash. While the motion t0 quash was heard on October 23, 2018, the court order permitting that discovery was not issued and filed until Friday, December 21, 2018. A related protective order was not filed until January 3, lO 2019. [Notez The Court’s order 0n the discovery motion was served on my PO Box' instead ll 0f the address I provided for this case. Hopefully, this will be corrected with my recent filing 12 of a Notice of Change of Address] 13 5. The emails exchanged between the Wangs and me that the Court ordered l4 produced in October 201 8 were not produced until late in the afternoon 0f Friday, February 1, 15 2019. What was produced was “in the cloud” and required a considerable amount 0f effort to l6 open. It took my e-discovery expert, Phillip Moon (“Moon”), over ‘/2hour to download the l7 emails from “the cloud.” Itthen took Moon another approximately 3O — 45 minutes to figure- 18 out how to overcome obstacles t0 his opening the files. When one of the files was finally l9 opened it was essentially worthless. Attached to my Declaration as Exhibit 2 is a sample of 20 that email string — how itwas produced by Defendants and as it isfound on my computer. 21 6. Defendants produced in excess 0f 17,400 pages that were part 0f the exchange 22 0f emails. This greatly exaggerates the situation. Recently I closely examined every email 23 exchanged between me and the Wangs that are found on my own computer. This took about 24 5 hours. I finally determined that there were approximately 1,900 emails on my computer that 25 l I use my PO Box as my State Bar address and have used it for many years for my activities as a court neutral. Court clerks in other cases as well as this case sometimes pick this up and 26 accidentally serve me at my PO Box with case matters. That is what happened in this case — note it is addressed to “Neutral Kevin C. Bedolla.” [Bedolla Exhibit 1] I do not check my PO Box daily. 27 Consequently, I did not pick-up the Court’s order until the end of the year. I contacted the court right after the New Year and “hand-carried” the related Confidentiality Order so that it was filed 28 by January 3. 2 Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla in Support of Ex Pane Motion forContinuance I had exchanged with the Wangs over a 4+ year period, the majority during the 19 month period I represented LIL in Alameda County Superior Court Case entitled LIL vs. Mi, et. al., RG 11602685 (“Alameda Case”) [August 2013 to March 2015]. I further analyzed the content of the emails and, having some memory of many of these exchanges, determined that, at most, fewer than 100 emails are missing. 7. The only reason I sought the order for the Defendants copies of those emails was because my email service, Yahoo, appears t0 have lost some of them. Since there was no confidentiality issue with respect t0 these emails, all Defendants had t0 d0 was forward each email to me in chronological order. 10 8. During the Alameda Case, Adam was sanctioned by Judge Appel on 3 ll different occasions for discovery violations that included monetary sanctions [Note: There 12 were actually 6 different negative discovery orders]. The monetary sanctions totaled more 13 than $4,000.00. 14 9. Another time during the Alameda Case, in response t0 a document demand that 15 included Excel Spread Sheets, Adam personally prepared the documents, including the 16 electronic Bates Stamping. There were about 15,000 — 20,000 pages of actual documents, 17 including about 15 Excel Spread Sheets. Adam manipulated the Excel Spread Sheets so that 18 each page, including each blank page, was also produced. Adam bragged about this to me. 19 This expanded the production by about 76,000 pages per Excel Spread Sheet. Consequently, 20 a document production that should have been only about 15,000 — 20,000 pages was well over 21 1,000,000 pages. 22 10. In Santa Clara County Superior Court Case 1—15-CV-280180 (“Collection 23 Case”) that is the basis for this current action for malicious prosecution, Adam was found to 24 have violated discovery statutes and was even admonished by Judge Williams about his discovery habitsz Exhibit 3 Quoting part of her order, Judge Williams stated: “there is sort 25 26 of a sense on the court’s part of perception that Mr. Wang views the discovery process as 27 28 2 Exhibit 3 ispart of the transcript of my CCP 128.5 motion in the Collection Case. § 3 Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla inSupport of Bx Parte Motion for Continuance ‘hold it back until the last moment’ and to not provide discovery...” Exhibit 4, Pg: 5, Ln: 15-18 11. Adam has lied t0 a Federal Court judge. In the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No: ll-CV-Ol 189-LHK, the Honorable Lucy Koh ruled that a declaration Mr. Wang had made to remain in the case “was not entirely truthful” and that the court did not “credit [Mr. Wang’s] declaration.” Judge Koh’s order further stated: “Even more disturbing is the evidence on the record of Wang’s willingness t0 use confidential information he gained from the preliminary consultation with Perfect Day t0 Plaintiff’ sadvantage in this litigation.” Exhibit 5 10 12. Of very recent vintage, Adam once again proved he is “truth challenged.” In ll his recent disciplinary action before the State Bar,3 he was facing some very serious charges. 12 In November 2018, Adam stipulated to a 1-year suspension [90-days actual]. Exhibit 6 l3 Despite the serious nature 0f the charges, during the proceedings Adam sent the State Bar a l4 fee agreement that was different from the one that was at issue, representing to the State Bar 15 that it was genuine. Exhibit 6, Aggravating Circumstances, Pg: l4 In other words, he lied l6 to the State Bar. 17 13. Icannot take effective and efficient depositions of the Wangs until I have had l8 the opportunity t0 review the bank records and the emails. The reason is so I can prepare l9 portions of those documents as deposition exhibits. The bank records arrived February 7, 20 2019. The emails this Court ordered to be provided to Plaintiff last October have yet to be 21 provided in the manner order — as exchanged. 22 14. The Wangs have always had an easy way to provide me with the emails. Since 23 there was no confidentiality issue with respect to these emails, all Defendants had to do was 24 forward each email tome in chronological order — furthest back in time to the most recent. 25 15. I estimate that it will take about a week to ten days after receipt of all the 26 emails ordered produced in a usable format before I will be properly prepared to take the 27 Wangs depositions. Once the Wangs have been deposed, they will have up to 30 days to 28 3 State Bar of California Case Number 16-O-14942-PEM 4 Declaration ot‘Kevin C. Bedolla inSupport of Ex Pane Motion for Continuance review and make changes to their depositions. While this can be shorten ifthe Wangs quickly review their depositions, make changes, and verify them, Adam’s well documented history 0f playing discovery games gives no assurance he will cooperate in expediting matters. Even if the transcripts are expedited by my court reporter [which they will be], itwill likely take at least 40 days“ for verified transcripts to be delivered to me. 16. The Defendants “generously” offered to be available for their depositions from February 12-15. The hearing for the Defendants’ Anti-SLAPP motion is set for March 7, 2019. My response is due 9 court days before or February 22, 2019. Assuming the depositions were taken on February l4, even if the transcripts were expedited, they would not 10 be ready until about February 21 and the Defendants would not have had the chance to review ll them, much less correct and verify them. 12 17. Defendants” counsel has stated that they will waive having the Wangs verify l3 their depositions. This is either potential malpractice or meaningless. The fact that ittook the 14 Defendants over three months to produce the emails is evidence enough to not rely on their 15 promises. Further, if there is an egregious error, the Wangs will testify that they did not mean 16 what the court reporter recorded or seek a court order permitting a change. As an excuse they 17 could claim they did not have the opportunity to review and verify their deposition to avoid 18 the consequences of their testimony. Or the judge or jury will hold an honest mistake against 19 them. Since both of the Wangs are Chinese natives, the chances of there being a transcription 2O error is greater than normal. Finally, there is also the possibility that the court reporter might 21 make a mistake in transcribing the question making the exchange either meaningless or 22 damning to the Defendants. 23 18. This is the third case involving me and the Defendants. Everything started 24 with the Alameda Case. Adam represented LIL, himself, and Jennifer, for approximately the 25 first 21+ months of the Alameda Case. In August 2013, I replaced Adam as counsel for LIL 26 27 4 The 40 day estimate assumes the expedited transcript is available within 7 days. A deponent is generally notified by mail. This adds 5 days to the process. The deponent then has 35 days from 28 the date of the notice t0 make changes and execute the verification. 5 Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla inSupport ofEx Pane Motion for Continuance and William McLean5 0f Thoits Law took over from Adam representing Adam and Jennifer — both Adam and Jennifer had been sued individually in a cross-complaint. Irepresented LIL for 19 months in the Alameda Case and was replaced after LIL refused t0 pay his fees and costs. Mr. McLean continued to represent Adam and Jennifer until the case settled about a year later, in early 2016. 19. In May 2015, I filed the Collection Case t0 get paid for my fees and costs representing LIL in the Alameda Case. Early in the Collection Case, I sought and was granted a prejudgment writ of attachment. The motion was unopposed. Despite this, Adam filed a cross-complaint against me 0n behalf of LIL setting forth four (4) causes 0f action; 10 Breach of fiduciary Duty, Fraud, Breach of Contract, and Unjust Enrichment. During ll discovery LIL produced no evidence to support any of its claims. 12 20. The only “evidence” Adam produced at trial for LIL was his claim that I 13 should have settled the Alameda Case four (4) months after taking over from Adam. This was 14 absurd for several reasons, including the fact that Mr. McLean handled a_ll settlement 15 negotiations for LIL, Adam, and Jennifer while I was involved in the Alameda Case.6 l6 Predictably, the jury awarded me everything I asked for and found against LIL on its cross- l7 complaint. 18 21. I need a continuance because the Defendants did not produce court ordered 19 discovery timely and in a usable format and that other court authorized third party discovery 20 was not processed and delivered to the Plaintiff until February 7, 2019. Some of these 21 documents will be included as exhibits in the Court ordered depositions of Adam and 22 Jennifer. Consequently, l have not been able to take those depositions, much less obtain 23 verified transcripts. I need to receive verified copies of the Wangs depositions before I can 24 incorporate any of itinto my opposition. 25 26 5 I brought Mr. McLean into the Alameda Case at the request of Adam. 27 6 The reason Mr. McLean handled all settlement talks was that at that time the relationship between opposing counsel and me was strained. We had sued each other after the break-up of our 28 law firm several years before. Since then the wounds have healed. 6 Declaration of Kevin C. Bedolla inSupport of Ex Parte Motion for Continuance 22. I have not caused the delays. The delay in obtaining the emails is solely the fault of Defendants. The Defendants knew at the hearing on October 23, 2018 that they were to send to me copies of all emails exchanged between them and me. Confidentiality was not an issue because each of the parities had already seen every email. Effort was not an issue because the task takes about 10 — 15 minutes per computer to download them all. In the alternative, it would take a clerk about 10 — 11 hours to forward them t0 me. Instead, Defendants manipulated their emails into an unwanted format that is useless without the use of a previously undisclosed program, Bates Stamped them all, and did not produce them until late afternoon on Friday, February l, 2019. 10 23. The delay in obtaining the Bank of America records is due to the delay in 11 obtaining two relevant court orders so that the subpoena could be processed. The subpoena 12 service submitted the court order authorizing the discovery on January 7, 2019. The l3 documents were finally delivered to Plaintiff on February 7, 2019. l4 24. On February 8, 2019, Plaintiff sent an email to Defendants’ attorney, Joseph 15 O’Neil, suggesting the parties stipulate to a continuance of the Anti-SLAPP motion. Exhibit 16 7 O’Neil has not responded to the suggestion, forcing Plaintiff to file this motion. 17 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on February LL, 2019. 19 KEVIN C. BEDOLLA 2O 21 22 23 By: WM Kevid Bedolla, Pro Per 24 25 26 27 28 7 Declaration of Kevin C. Bcdolla in Support of Ex Parte Motion for Continuance Exhibit 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DOWNTOWN COURTHOUSE 191NORTH FIRST STREET SAN JOSE, CALIFQRMA 95113 CIVIL DIVISION Neutral Kevin C. Bedolla PO Box 61 1 175 San Jose CA 95161-1175 RE: Kevin Bedolla vs Adam Wang et al Case Number: 1BCV32591 8 PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; PLAINTIFF"S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16, SUBDIVISION (g) was delivered to the parties listed below the above entitled case as set forthin the sworn declaration below. Ifyou, a partyrepresented by you,or a witnessto be calledon behalf of thatpartyneed an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact theCourt office Administrator’s at(408) 882-2700. or use the Court’sTDD tine(408) 882-2690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay Service (800) 735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: |declare thatIserved thisnoticeby enclosinga true copyina sealed envelope. addressedto each person whose name isshown betow, and by depositing the envelope San Jose, with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Mail at CA on December 21, 2018. CLERK OF THE COURT, by Stacie Marshali, Deputy. cc: Chris A Tarkington Tarkington ONeiIi etal 201 Mission Street Suite 710 San Francisco CA 94105 cw<9027 REV 12/03/16 PROOF OF SERVICE Exhibit 2 126636 7315 Delivered-To: adamqwang@gmail.com Received: by 10.182.32.70 with SMTP id g6csp781139obi; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:18:28 -0888 (PST) X-Received: by 16.55.81.65 with SMTP id f62mr4653256qkb.278.1479399568896; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:18:28 ~0800 (PST) Return—Path: Received: from NAM01-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam010n0081.outbound.protection.outlook.com. [104.47.33.81]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z7sill45661qtz.89.2016.11.17.08.18.28 for (version=TLSl_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AE5128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:18:28 -0800 (PST) Received—SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kbedolla@wagedefenders.net designates 104.47.33.81 as permitted sender) c1ient—ip=104.47.33.81; Authentication-Results: mx.goog1e.com; dkim=pass header.i=@NETORGS46588.onmicrosoft.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kbedolla@wagedefenders.net designates 104.47.33.81 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=KBedol1a@wagedefenders.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=NETORGS46588.onmicrosoft.com; s=se1ector1-wagedefenders-net; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh:kXFV6200wt181Rd/33XfrUj9NpBgAKqFVhN0mcU2615=; b=Mx/YgKSS/4j/wImODJvhiHVzXovaE3thqHuy8YcVn3beGZanRioZ6ng0aLSrzj+km3wAGDprHeer/ SZhabesluJmthlokpRJdlhByys723thFeZsk/LszZ1th+b48c3g/q098lwuXTYWLaUdVyriJsz7LBK chD0= Received: from BN6PR10MB1490.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (10.173.31.8) by BN6PR10M81491.namprd10.prod.outlook.com (10.173.31.9) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLSl_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.721.10; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:18:25 +0000 Received: from BN6PR10M81490.namprd10.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.31.8]) by BN6PR10M81490.namprd10.prod.outlook.com ([10.173.31.8]) with mapi id 15.01.0721.015; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:18:25 +0000 From: "Kevin Bedolla" To: Adam Wang Subject: RE: Bedolla vs LIL Thread-Topic: Bedolla vs LIL Thread—Index: AdJAvaIDYr7VCGOSsG4yFT73/P1iAADs+kAAABDq3A= Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:18:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: In—Reply-To: <2B3A37A1—C2B1-45DD-A209-1958A4E070CF@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en—US Page 1 126036 X-MS-Has—Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mai1From=KBedolla@wagedefenders.net; x-originating-ip: [96.95.204.193] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;BN6PR16M81491;72erlOUxJu91i4e74Fx9FlzthsztvFpS7x+4OL68kx8qSNI9ASqus1Q429vaK9T AEBzIppyNijS/ltRJKZ19ngHW8pG7uRj60rc4nHdeQ/8mep+9seOTZQBpsleYZNVthvZCIkRGOSPrG pc4SQSxeiDZserfs7p/2chE9wf8qhbc9c6abePh4JpwalBPBCMsoCvaVZyipBlDCebi1yrFT6qM3VKSf mWijJ7K8QVc10XN6T8deF6Y0cDuPJlPZjnlshSwt7FMdWLJTLZdr207anMHVeuLle47Q/ceYSilZIl6N pAWiBOmIpbnmUuGIvagDBfBQjUz4thAcLIPYPmOVS7A= x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 1becad1d-31a5—4ee4-1616-68d46f655bfb x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:3BCL:0;PCL:6;RULEID:(22091);SRVRzBN6PR10M81491; x-microsoft-antispam-prvsz x-exchange-antispam-report—test: UriScanz; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:65PCL:0;RULEID:(6068326)(6046281)(601904)(2461047)(5005096)(8121501946)(10201501 046)(3902961)(6961324)(6941223)(6043646);SRVR:BN6PR16MBI49138CL26;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR :BN6PR10M81491; x—forefront-prvs: 01294F87SB x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10669020)(6699061)(7916862)(377454693)(199003)(24454902)(189862)(13464 963)(8e792995)(33656692)(5963630169991)(119136993)(87936691)(7696994)(75576991)(5669 399991)(2999199991)(29seleeeez)(97736694)(7116993)(54356999)(4se1eeee1)(92566962)(14 11691)(76176999)(9686692)(395945965)(2966662)(8676eez)(3846662)(77696695)(162836003) (7846662)(161416001)(50986999)(167886002)(6116962)(229853962)(66066661)(3286760602)( 122556062)(6916009)(8936062)(165586962)(99286902)(86362661)(189998661)(81156014)(687 36067)(166356991)(3666760061)(7736602)(81166066)(6596983)(3489788604)(74316902);DIR: OUT;SFP:1101;SCL:1;SRVR:BN6PR16M814913H:BN6PR18MBl498.namprd10.prod.outlook.com;FPR: ;SPF:None3PTR:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1;LANGzen; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: wagedefenders.net does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content—Type: text/plain; charset="us—ascii" Content-Transfer—Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.8 X-OriginatorOrg: wagedefenders.net X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 17 Nov 2616 16:18:25.7126 (UTC) X-MS~Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 23eaaeaf-35c8-46a5-b525-24a8b54ef99d X-MS-Exchange-Transport—CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR19M81491 Mr. Wang; What dates are you available for the document inspection? Pick 3 dates wit: Page 2 126636 h times between November 19 and 25, including weekends. Kevin Bedolla=20 Kevin C. Bedolla 95 S. Market St. Suite 360 San Jose, Ca. 95113-2356 Cell: 468-313-9817 Office: 468-995-3272 Fax: 408-995—3274 kbedolla@wagedefenders.net The information in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and: protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any diss: emination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think tha: t you have received this e—mail message in error, please e-mail the sender = and delete the copies. Thank you. =26 =29 ----- Original Message—-—-- From: Adam Wang [mailto:adamqwang@gmail.com]=29 Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2616 8:15 AM To: Kevin Bedolla Subject: Re: Bedolla vs LIL Please serve your notice for depo. Also, please confirm the date you are co= ming for doc inspection.=29 Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 17, 2616, at 6:44 AM, Kevin Bedolla w= rote: >=26 > Mr. Wang >=20 > I noticed that you faxed to me the response to my motion to compel. The = responsive papers are required to be served and filed nine court days befor= e the hearing. [CCP 1665] Since the court is closed on both intervening we: ekends and on Thanksgiving and the day after, the papers were due on Monday: November 14. The time and date stamp on your fax indicates they were serv= ed today. While the court is free to consider your late filing, itIis also: free to ignore it. >=20 > I want confirmed dates for the depositions of you and Jennifer in mid—Dec: ember by today. If not, I will be forced to file an ex parte motion to com: pel attendance. > Kevin Bedolla > Kevin C. Bedolla Page 3 126036 95 S. Market St. Suite 366 San Jose, Ca. 95113-2356 Cell: 498-313-9817 VVVVVV Office: 468-995—3272 Fax: 408-995-3274 kbedolla@wagedefenders.net > The information in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, a= nd protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any di= ssemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think t: hat you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sende: r and delete the copies. Thank you. >=20 >=20 >=26 >=26 >=Ze > date-1ast-viewed e date-received 1479399508 flags 8596195717 gmai1-label—ids 358 4 remote-id 317636 Page 4 u Kevin From: Sent: To: Subject: Mr. Wang; Cell: Bedolla What dates Kevin Bedolla Kevin 95 S. C. are you available for the including weekends. Bedolla Market The information ----- Original From: St. Suite 300 San Jose, Ca. 95113-2350 408-313-9817 Office: 408—995-3272 Fax: 408-995-3274 kbedolIa@wagedefenders.net intended recipient, Kevin Bedolla Thursday, Adam Wang November RE: Bedolla vs LIL document inspection? 17, 2016 8:18 in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential, Message--—-- Adam Wang [mailto:adamqwang@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, Subject: November Re: Bedolla vs LIL 17, 2016 8:15 To: Kevin Bedolla Please serve your notice for depo. Also, AM AM Pick 3 dates with times between November 19 and and protected from disclosure. any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. this e—mail message in error, please e-mail the sender and delete the copies. Thank you. please confirm the date you are coming for doc inspection. 25, If you are not the If you think that you have received Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 17, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Kevin Bedolla wrote: > > Mr. Wang > > noticed that you faxed to me l the response to my motion to compel. The responsive papers are required to be served and filednine court days before the hearing. [CCP 1005] Since the court is closed on both intervening weekends and on Thanksgiving and the day after, the papers were due on Monday November 14. The time and date stamp on your fax indicates they were served today. While the court isfree to consider your late also free to ignore filing, it is it. > > want confirmed dates for the depositions of you and Jennifer mid-December by today. l in ifnot, will be forced to I file an ex parte motion to compel attendance. > Kevin Bedolla > Kevin C. Bedolla > 95 S. Market St. Suite 300 > San Jose, Ca. 95113—2350 > Cell:408-313-9817 > Office: 4088953272 > Fax: 408-995-3274 > kbedolla@wagedefenders.net > The information in thise-mail message may be privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying isstrictlyprohibited. Ifyou think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender and delete the copies. Thank you. > > > > > > Exhibit 3 fiKevin From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kevin, None locate The We Bedolla of the emails them files each email only This Norman we Tarkington, L. again. in Norman Chong Friday, Kevin JOSEPH included emails (including attachments) was not A Professional 201 Mission San Francisco, Tel: Fax: (415) (415) a simple task. Chong O’Neill, Street, This communication Barrack Corporation Suite CA 94105 777-5501 546-4962 is