Preview
16CV301867
Santa Clara — Civil
Electronically Filed
WHGC, P.L.C. by Superior Court of CA,
Jeffrey C.P. Wang, SBN 144414 County of Santa Clara,
JeffreyWang@WHGCLaw.com on 11/24/2020 6:50 PM
Michael G. York, SBN 89945
Michael York@WHGCLaw.com Reviewed By: R. Walker
Kathleen E. Alparce, SBN 230935 Case #16CV301867
KathleenAlparce@WHGC.com Envelope: 5361668
Jessica A. Crabbe, SBN 263668
JessicaCrabbe@WHGCLaw.,com
1301 Dove Street, Suite 1050
Newport Beach, California 92660-2416
Telephone: (949) 833-8483
Facsimile: (866) 881-5007
Edwin K. Prather, SBN 190536
edwin@pratherlawoffices.com
PRATHER LAW OFFICES
245 Fifth St., Suite 103
10 San Francisco, CA 94103
Telehone: (415) 881-7774
11
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants XINGKE ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO.,
12 LTD., formerly known as SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON
aka MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; and MUI LIANG TJOA, aka ML TJOA
13
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
15 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
16
17 SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD., CASE NO. 16CV301867
18 Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH
19 Vv. SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
20 XINGKE ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. YORK
CO., LTD.; XINGKE ELECTRONICS (HONG IN SUPPORT THEREOF
21 KONG) CO., LTD.; SINCOO ELECTRONICS|
TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED; JINLONG DATE: December 9, 2020
22 MACHINERY & ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; TIME: 1:30 p.m.
LIEW YEW SOON aka MARK LIEW; SINCO DEPT: 3
23 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD;
NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; MUI LIANG DATE ACTION FILED: October 28, 2016
24 TJOA; JIN SHAO PENG; XU SHUGONG; TRIAL DATE: May 17, 2021
QUEK SEOW ENG; and DOES 5 through 20,
25 inclusive,
26 Defendants.
27
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION.
28
1
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
To Cross-defendants LIM JIT MING, aka BRYAN LIM, and JONATHAN CHEE, and to
their attorneys of record:
Cross-complainants submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and
Declaration of Michael G. York in further opposition to Cross-defendants’ motion to quash service
of summons on the Second Amended Cross-complaint.
DATED: November 24, 2020 WHGC, P.L.C.
By:
——— $<
MICHAEL G. YORK
Attorneys for Defendants and
Cross-complainants XINGKE
10 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN)
CO., LTD., formerly known as
11 SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN)
CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka
12 MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG
aka CY NG; and MUI LIANG TJOA,
13 aka ML TJOA
14
IS)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION.
In support of their motion to quash, Cross-defendants have each submitted a declaration
describing what they claim to be their respective contacts with California.
However, first, their declarations are vague, evasive, and/or misleading. Thus, the vagueness
and evasiveness in their declarations should be interpreted against them and/or their claims should
not be believed. (See 3 Witkin, Cal. Evid. (5" Ed.) Presentation at Trial, § 102, p. 159.)
Second, in some cases, Cross-defendants have provided weaker and less satisfactory evidence
when they could have provided stronger and more satisfactory evidence. Thus, the evidence should
10 also not be believed. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 128, p. 192.)
ll Third, in some cases, Cross-defendants’ responses to discovery can be interpreted to mean
12 that they have destroyed evidence. If so, it should inferred that the evidence that was destroyed was
13 adverse to Cross-defendants’ claims. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 129, pp. 192-194.)
14 Under the circumstances, this Court should rule that Cross-defendants have sufficient
15 minimum contacts with California.
16
17 II. CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS.
18 A. Cross-defendant Lim’s Claims.
19 In the following paragraphs of his declaration filed on or about June 17, 2020, Cross-
20 defendant Lim claims the following:
21 12. From 2000 to 2019, he spent approximately 30 days in California “for short vacations or
22 to conduct business on behalf of my employer. Of those trips to California 5 where [sic] related to
23 this litigation.”
24 The statement is vague, evasive, and/or Mr. Lim could have provided stronger and more
25 satisfactory evidence. Of the approximately 30 days in California Mr. Lim spent for short vacations
26 or to conduct business on behalf of his employer, Mr. Lim does not state how many days were spent
27 conducting business and how many days were spent for vacations. Thus, it may be inferred that Mr.
28 Lim spent as many as 28 days in California conducting business.
3
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS,
6. His meeting (singular) in California has been limited to the scope of his employment.
The statement is vague, evasive, and/or misleading. As just discussed, Mr. Lim states that
five of his trips to California were related to this litigation and it may inferred that Mr. Lim spent as
many as 28 days in California conducting business. Despite that, Mr. Lim claims he had only one
meeting.
9. He is “not a shareholder or owner of any business or corporation that is registered in or
conducts business transactions in California.”
The statement is vague, evasive, and/or misleading. First, Mr. Lim is the owner of Plaintiff
SinCo, and in this action and the related federal action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants stole
10 Plaintiffs customers, including customers in California. Despite that, Mr. Lim claims that Plaintiff
11 does not do business in California.
12 Second, Mr. Lim, in so stating, is suggesting that Plaintiff has no contacts with California.
13 However, Plaintiff does business with customers in California and has filed two lawsuits in
14 California, this one and the related federal action.
15 10. He does “not currently own any personal bank or investment accounts of any type in
16 California.”
17 The statement is vague, evasive, and/or Mr. Lim could have provided stronger and more
18 satisfactory evidence. Mr. Lim states that he does not currently have any such accounts. The
19 statement is “pregnant” with the admission that in the past Mr. Lim has had such accounts in
20 California, (See 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (S" Ed.) Pleading, § 1068 ef seq., p. 504, ef seq.) However,
21 Mr. Lim has provided no information whatsoever regarding the accounts.
22 The vague, evasive, and/or misleading nature of Mr. Lim’s statements is even more
23 problematic in light of his vague and evasive responses to Cross-complainants’ request for
24 production of documents.
25 First, in response to a request for a copy of his passport, Mr. Lim produced a copy of his
26 passport issued April 6, 2015, but stated he destroyed his previous passport. (Exhibit “A,” p. 4.)
27 Second, in response to numerous requests, Mr. Lim states that he “does not currently have
28 any information [sic] responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed.” Mr. Lim’s
4
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
statement that the documents “may have previously existed” is vague and evasive, but can be
interpreted to mean that the documents existed at one point in time but have been destroyed.
The documents that may have previously existed and destroyed include documents regarding
the following requests:
4. The purpose of any travel to or from the United States. (Exhibit “A,” p. 5.)
5. Payments made for airfare and hotel charges as a result of any travel to or from the United
States. (Exhibit “A,” p. 5.)
7. The dates of all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. (Exhibit “A,” pp. 6-7.)
8. The location of all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. (Exhibit “A,” p. 7.)
10 9. The identities of the persons Mr. Lim at all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California.
ll (Exhibit “A,” pp. 7-8.)
12 10. The matters discussed at all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. (Exhibit “A,”
13 pp. 8-9.)
14 14. The dates of each trip that Mr. Lim has made to California. (Exhibit “A,” p. 10.)
15 15. The purpose of each trip that Mr. Lim made to California. (Exhibit “A,” p. 11.)
16 Mr. Lim’s statements can be interpreted to mean that Mr. Lim has destroyed evidence and, if
17 so, it should inferred that the evidence that was destroyed was adverse to Mr. Lim’s claims. (See 3
18 Witkin, supra, § 129, pp. 192-194.)
19
20 B. Cross-defendant Chee’s Claims.
21 Cross-defendant Chee’s declaration is also vague, evasive, and/or misleading, albeit not to
22 the same extent as Cross-defendant Lim’s.
23 In the following paragraph of his declaration filed on or about June 17, 2020, Cross-
24 defendant Chee claims the following:
25 9. He does “not currently own any personal bank or investment accounts of any type in
26 California.”
27 Just as in the case of Cross-defendant Lim, the statement is vague, evasive, and/or Mr. Chee
28 could have provided stronger and more satisfactory evidence. Mr. Chee states that he does not
5
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
currently have any such accounts. The statement is “pregnant” with the admission that in the past
Mr. Chee has had such accounts in California. (See 5 Witkin, supra, § 1068 et seq., p. 504, et seq.)
However, Mr. Chee has provided no information whatsoever regarding the accounts.
Furthermore, Mr. Chee’s declaration is vague and evasive in that he completely ignores one
of the most important issues. In his declaration, Mr. Chee completely fails to state how many times
he has traveled to California, the purposes of his visits, etc. Mr. Chee could have produced stronger
and more satisfactory evidence. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 128, p. 192.)
Just as in the case of Cross-defendant Lim, the vague, evasive, and/or misleading nature of
Mr. Chee’s statements is even more problematic in light of his vague and evasive responses to
10 Cross-complainants’ request for production of documents.
11 First, in response to a request for a copy of his passport, Mr. Chee produced a copy of his
12 passport issued August 12, 2017, but stated he destroyed his previous passport. (Exhibit “B,” p. 4.)
13 Second, in response to numerous requests, Mr. Chee states that responsive information [sic]
14 may exist with Plaintiff and may have already been produced, and that he “does not currently have
15 any information [sic] responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed.”
16 Mr. Chee’s statements that the documents may exist with Plaintiff and may have already been
17 produced, and that the documents “may have previously existed,” are vague and evasive, but, again,
18 the latter statement can be interpreted to mean that the documents existed at one point in time but
19 have been destroyed.
20 The documents that may have previously existed and destroyed, or may have already been
21 produced, include documents regarding the following requests:
22 4. The purpose of any travel to or from the United States. (Exhibit “B,” p. 5.)
23 5. Payments made for airfare and hotel charges as a result of any travel to or from the United
24 States. (Exhibit “B,” p. 5.)
25 7. The dates of all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. (Exhibit “B,” p. 7.)
26 8. The location of all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. (Exhibit “B,” pp . 7-8.)
27 9. The identities of the persons Mr. Chee at all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California.
28 (Exhibit “B,” pp. 8-9.)
6
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS,
10. The matters discussed at all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. (Exhibit “B,”
p. 9.)
Mr. Chee’s statements can also be interpreted to mean that Mr. Chee has destroyed evidence
and, if so, it should inferred that the evidence that was destroyed was adverse to Mr. Chee’s claims.
(See 3 Witkin, supra, § 129, pp. 192-194.)
Furthermore, Plaintiff has produced almost 2.2 million documents. By stating only that the
documents may exist with Plaintiff and may have already been produced but not identifying the
documents, Mr. Chee has provided weaker and less satisfactory evidence when he could have
produced stronger and more satisfactory evidence. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 128, p. 192.)
10
11 Ill. CROSS-DEFENDANTS HAVE SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH
12 CALIFORNIA.
13 Given Cross-defendants’ vague, evasive, and/or misleading declarations and responses to
14 discovery, their providing weaker and less satisfactory evidence when they could have provided
tS stronger and more satisfactory evidence, and the fact that they may have destroyed evidence, it
16 should be inferred as follows. First, Cross-defendants traveled to California for the purpose of
17 conducting business enough times, met with enough customers in California, discussed enough
18 business matters in California, and otherwise did enough business in California, that they do in fact
19 have sufficient minimum contacts with California. Second, if Cross-defendants had provided
20 stronger and more satisfactory evidence, which they could have provided, instead of weaker and less
21 satisfactory evidence, and/or, perhaps, not destroyed evidence, the evidence would show that they do
22 in fact have sufficient minimum contacts with California.
23 In any event, here, there is much more than a single act which, by itself, may suffice. (Weil
24 & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) { 3:240.1, p. 3-83.)
25 Under the circumstances, exercising jurisdiction over Cross-defendants does not offend traditional
26 notions of “fair play and substantial justice.” (See Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc.
27 (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899].)
28 As to any suggestion that jurisdiction may not be exercised over Cross-defendants on the
a
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
ground that they are employees of Plaintiff, the argument is without merit; jurisdiction may still be
exercised. (Weil & Brown, supra, J 3:207.1, p. 3-71.)
Finally, Cross-defendants should not be permitted to attempt to cure their failures in a reply.
(See Weil & Brown, supra, 9:106.1, p. 9(1)-90-91.)
IV. CONCLUSION.
Cross-defendants’ motion to quash should be denied.
However, if and to the extent that this Court believes that the motion should be granted due
to lack of evidence because Cross-defendants failed to provide evidence Cross-complainants
10 requested, Cross-complainants respectfully request that this hearing be continued so that Cross-
ll complainants may take Cross-defendants’ depositions. In Cross-complainants’ view, it is neither
12 expeditious nor cost effective to go though the law and motion process and that the best way to get to
13 the bottom of the issues is to take Cross-defendants’ depositions.
14 DATED: November 24, 2020 WHGC, P.L.C.
15
16 By:
MICHAEL G. YORK
17 Attorneys for Defendants and
Cross-complainants XINGKE
18 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN)
CO., LTD., formerly known as
19 SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN)
CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka
20 MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG
aka CY NG; and MUI LIANG TJOA,
21 aka ML TJOA
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. YORK
I, MICHAEL G. YORK, declare:
1. Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and of
counsel to WHGC, P.L.C., attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants in this action. I am
submitting this declaration in support of Defendants and Cross-complainants’ Further Opposition to
the Motion to Quash. I know these facts of my own personal knowledge and, if asked, would and
could competently testify thereto.
2. According to the evidence Plainitff has provided in this action, Cross-defendant Lim is the
owner of Plaintiff.
10 3. We served Cross-defendants with requests for production of documents and
11 Cross-defendants served responses to the requests. Attached to this Opposition as Exhibits “A” and
12 “B,” respectively, are the responses, which include the requests.
13 4. Cross-defendant Lim produced a copy of his passport issued April 6, 2015, but in response
14 to Cross-complainants’ request for production of documents stated he destroyed his previous
15 passport.
16 5. Cross-defendant Chee produced a copy of his passport issued August 12, 2017, but in
17 response to Cross-complainants’ request for production of documents stated he destroyed his
18 previous passport.
19 6. It was and is our position that Cross-defendants’ responses to the requests for production
20 of documents were insufficient. We met and conferred with Cross-defendants’ counsel regarding the
21 responses, but Cross-defendants refused to serve any further responses.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
23 is true and correct.
24 DATED: November 24, 2020
MICHAEL G. YORK
25
26
27
28
9
CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
EXHIBIT “A”
TODD A. ROBERTS (SBN 129722)
LAEL D. ANDARA (SBN 215416,
JENNIFER E. ACHESON (SBN 130833)
DANIEL A. GAITAN (SBN 326413)
ROPERS MAJESKI PC
1001 Marshall Street, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: 650.364.8200
Facsimile: 650.780.1701
Email: todd.roberts@ropers.com
lael.andara@ropers.com
jennifer.acheson@ropers.com
daniel.gaitan@ropers.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant
SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
il
12
SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, Case No. 16CV301867
13
Plaintiff, CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
Om
Vv. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET
Ow 15 NUMBER ONE
Lik XINGKE ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN)
16 CO., LTD.; XINGKE ELECTRONICS Action Filed: October 28, 2016
oF (HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; SINCOO Trial Date: May 17, 2021
17 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO.,
OF 18
LIMITED.; JINLONG MACHINERY &
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW
SOON aka MARK LIEW; SINCO
19 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.;
NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; MUI LIANG
20 TJOA; JIN SHAO PING; XU SHUGONG,
QUEK SEOW ENG and DOES 5 through 20,
21 inclusive,
22 Defendants.
23
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION
24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Complainants XINGKE ELECTRONICS
25 (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka MARK
LIEW; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; MUI LIANG TJOA, aka
26 ML TJOA
27 RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant BRYAN LIM
28
REE AMBER
Is st50. ONE
ie
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1 RESPONDING PARTY, pursuant to the provisions of section 2031.210 et seq. of
the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the Request for Production of
Documents, Set No. One, propounded by PROPOUNDING PARTY, as follows:
2 RESPONDING PARTY will not be producing information or documents
previously produced by parties in this action. Specifically, RESPONDING PARTY is an
employee of Plaintiff SinCo Technologies PTE LTD., who has previously produced
RESPONDING PARTY’s work emails and related information that would potentially be
responsive to these requests in the millions of pages of information produced from January 2017
10 to present. RESPONDING PARTY became an employee of Plaintiff in January of 2013.
Il 3 These responses do not represent a general appearance based on RESPONDING
12 PARTY’s reliance and assertion of CCP Subdivision (e)(1) of section 418.10. By these responses
13 RESPONDING PARTY reserves the right to challenge lack of personal jurisdiction, inconvenient
14 forum, and delay in prosecution.
OE
Om 15 4 Information responsive to the requests identified below will be produced by mail
Lik 16 in the physical form demanded by PROPOUNDING PARTY.
o€ 17 5 To the extent that RESPONDING PARTY identifies certain writings or delineates
18 any facts, he does so without prejudice to establish at a later date any additional facts that may be
&
19 contained within or discovered as a result of any subsequently-discovered facts of any additional
20 investigation and discovery.
21 6 The responses set forth herein are given without prejudice to RESPONDING
22 PARTY 's right to produce any subsequently-discovered facts or writings or to add, modify, or
23 otherwise change or amend the responses herein. The information hereinafter set forth is true and
24 correct to the best knowledge of RESPONDING PARTY as of this date, and is subject to
25 correction for inadvertent errors, mistakes or omissions.
26 7 These responses are based on information presently available to RESPONDING
27 PARTY. RESPONDING PARTY responses are based upon and necessarily limited to records
28 and information still in existence, presently available, and obtained in the course of preparing
NG-VS401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4
ae
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
these responses. Consequently, RESPONDING PARTY expressly reserves the right to change,
amend, modify, or supplement these responses in the event of error, mistake, or omission, and as
RESPONDING PARTY ascertains additional facts, makes analyses, completes legal research, or
obtains documents. RESPONDING PARTY also reserves the right to make any changes to these
responses if, at any time, additional or more accurate documents become available, and to
establish at a later date any additional facts that may be contained within or discovered as a result
of any additional documents. The time frame of these events occurred between 2015 to 2020, so
some responsive information may have previously existed, but was not preserved as
RESPONDING PARTY had no reasonable apprehension he would be a party to this action.
10 This understanding is based on the delay in RESPONDING PARTY bringing these claims three
il years after PLAINTIFF brought the action, and further delay after RESPONDING PARTY’s
12 deposition of RESPONDING PARTY as an employee of Plaintiff on April 5, 2019.
13 8 RESPONDING PARTY reserves the right to condition the production of
14 documents containing confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets on the
OB
Om 15 PROPOUNDING PARTY’s Agreement that RESPONDING PARTY is equally available to avail
Luk
16 himself of the Court’s January 26, 2017, Protective Order, to which RESPONDING PARTY
oF
OF
7 was not a participant.
18 I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE COMBINED INSTRUCTIONS AND
ce DEFINITIONS
9
9. RESPONDING PARTY generally objects to the scope of the definition of
20
“DOCUMENTS" to the extent it has multiple definitions and exceeds the scope set forth in
21
California Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2031.010 in that these requests seek documents that are in the
22
possession, custody, or control of SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and are therefore not in
23
the possession, custody, or control of RESPONDING PARTY. RESPONDING PARTY will not
24
undertake to produce documents that are not within his possession, custody, or control.
25
10. RESPONDING PARTY generally objects to these Requests and their combined
26
Instructions and Definitions to the extent they purport to impose a duty beyond that required by
27
28
NG-V5401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4
ae
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
CCP §2031.010; CCP §2031.030; §2031.210; §2031.220; §2031.210; and §2031.210.
RESPONDING PARTY assumes no duty beyond that imposed by law.
Til. SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND/OR OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTS
REQUEST NO. I:
A complete copy of all pages of any passport sou have had from 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
responds that he will produce all responsive information in his possession, custody, or control
pursuant to the January 26, 2017 protective order. RESPONDING PARTY’s passport
10 information is herein designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to the January 26, 2017
11 protective order, as it contains personally identifiable Information. RESPONDING PARTY also
12 acknowledges that he previously maintained a prior Passport that was destroyed upon the
13 issuance of the current one being produced.
14 REQUEST NO. 2:
OB
Om 15 Any and all documents you sent to or received from any United States governmental
Lik 16 agency regarding any travel to or from the United States from 2000 to the present.
of
Ok
17
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
18
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
&
19
responds that responsive information may exist with his employer SINCO TECHNOLOGIES
20
PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY
21
responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY has found a
22
single document information responsive to this Request, however there may have previously
23
existed other documents responsive to this request.
24
REQUEST NO. 3:
25
Any and all documents evidenving the daterspofans wavel tor from the | ated States
26
from 2N00 toto ththe 7a resent
27
28
NG-VS401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4
-4-
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY responds that he will
produce all responsive information in his possession, custody, or control pursuant to the January
26, 2017 protective order.
REQUEST NO. 4:
Any and all documents es idencing the purpose(s) of any travel to or from the United
States from 2U00 to the present.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
11 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
12 responds that responsive information may exist with his employer SINCO TECHNOLOGIES
13 PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation.
14 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
OE
Ob 15 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request,
Lui 16 which may have previously existed.
o- 17 REQUEST NO. 3:
OF 18 Any and all documents evidencing any payment(s) made Jor airfare and hotel! charges as a
OB
19 result of any travel to or from the United States from 2000 to the present.
20
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
21
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
22
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
23
may have already been produced in this litigation.
24
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
25
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request,
26
which may have previously existed.
27
28
NG-VS401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4
-5-
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
REQUEST NO. 6:
\ny and all documents ev idenciy any compensation of other benetils sou received as
result of any travel to or from the United States from 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this
request in vague and fails to define the term “other benefits,” and will be read this Request to
mean money directly related to travel, separate and apart from his general compensation.
10
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
11
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request,
12
which may have previously existed.
13
E UES
14
On Any and all documents evidencing the date(s) of all meeting(s) that you have had in
Om 15
California (referred to in paragraph 6 of sour November 21, 2019 declaration) from 2000 to the
Li 16
present.
os 17
Ok 18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
Ce Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
19
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
20
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this
21
request as it would call for the production of Attorney-Client communications he has had with his
22
counsel surrounding this dispute from July of 2016 to present. The parties had previously agreed
23
that communications between counsel and a party from October 2016 to Present would be
24
deemed as Attomey-Client communications and would not need to be set out on a privilege log
25
pursuant to CCP §2031.240. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects to the extent that it
26
requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY, specifically such as
27
28
NG-V540LA9C:4827-2543-5850.4
-6-
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s involvement in this litigation and the related
Federal action.
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any non-privileged information responsive to
this Request, which may have previously existed.
REQUEST NO. 8:
Any and all documents evidencing the location(s) of all meetingts) that you have had in
California (referred to in paragraph 6 ol your November 2!. 2019 declaration) from 2000 to the
present.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
11 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
12 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
13 may have already been produced in this litigation. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects
14 to the extent that it requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY,
Ot
Lil
Oh 15 specifically such as documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s involvement in this
16 litigation and the related Federal action.
o- 17 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
OR 18 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any non-privileged information responsive to
Xe
19 this Request, which may have previously existed.
20 REQUEST } 9
21 Any and all documents evidencing the namets} and title(s) or capacity (ies) of the
22 person(s) with whom you met at all me: eLingts) that vou hase had in California treferred to in
23 paragraph 6 of your November 21. 2019 declaration) trom 2000 to the present
24
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
25
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
26
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
27
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this
28
Faves
as-it, would call for the production of Attorney-Client communications he has had with his
eae
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
United States counsel. The parties had previously agreed that communications between counsel
and a party from October 2016 to Present would be deemed as Attorney-Client communications
and would not need to be set out on a privilege log pursuant to CCP §2031.240. Furthermore,
RESPONDING PARTY objects to the extent that it requests information already in the
possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY, specifically such as documents relating to
RESPONDING PARTY’s involvement in this litigation and the related Federal action.
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any non-privileged information responsive to
this Request, which may have previously existed.
10 REQUEST NO. 10:
11 Any and all documents evidencing all matter(s) discussed at all meeting(s) that you have
12 had in California (referred to in paragraph 6 of your November 21. 2019 declaration) from 2000
13 to the present.
14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
OE
Om 15 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
Lui 16 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
Oo.
OF
17 may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this
18 request as it would call for the production of Attorney-Client communications he has had with his
19 United States counsel surrounding this dispute from July of 2016 to present. The parties had
20 previously agreed that communications between counsel and a party from October 2016 to
21 Present would be deemed as Attomey-Client communications and would not need to be set out on
22 a privilege log pursuant to CCP §2031.240. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects to the
23 extent that it requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY,
24 specifically such as documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s invoivement in this
25 litigation and the related Federal action.
26 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
27 RESPONDING PARTY has produced any non-privileged information responsive to this Request,
28 but other res) onsive information may have previously existed.
NG-VS5401A9C:48; F 7-2543-5850.4
-8-
CROSS-DEFED ANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
REQUEST NO. U1:
Any and all documents evidencing any income you have received as a result of activities
you participated in while in California from 2000 to the present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this
request in vague and fails to define the term “any income,” and will be read this Request to mean
money directly related to travel, separate and apart from his general compensation and herein
10
incorporate the response to Request No. 6 above.
11
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
12
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request,
13
which may have previously existed.
14
UO 15
REQUEST NO. 12:
09 Any and all documents evidencing any ownership interest you have had in any business
16
that has conducted business in California from 2000 to the present.
17
OF 18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
Oe Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
19
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
20
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this
21
request in vague and fails to define the term “has conducted business,” and will read this Request
22
to mean a California incorporated business. RESPONDING PARTY further objects to the extent
23
this request is overbroad and irrelevant as to jurisdictional discovery, as an ownership interest or
24
purchase of stock does not confer jurisdiction. Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406,
25
1903); Peterson v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. 205 U. S. 364, (1907); Philadelphia & Reading Ey. v.
26
McKibben, 243 U. S. 264, (1917); Canon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U. S. 333,
27
(1925); Gravely Motor Plow & Cultivator Co. v. H. V. Carter Co., 193 F.2d 158, 160-61 (9th Cir.
28
NG-VS40LA9C:4827-2543-5850.4
-9-
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
1 1951). These cases stand for the proposition that the mere ownership of a company which is
doing business in the state does not mean that the RESPONDING PARTY is “doing business”
there so as to render itself liable to process.
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request,
which may have previously existed.
REQUEST NO. 13:
Any and all documents evidencing any personal financial accounts that you have had in
California from 2000 to the present.
10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
ll Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
12 responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY does not
13 currently have any information responsive to this Request, and to his recollection and
14 understanding no such personal financial accounts existed in California from 2000 to present.
OE
ih 15 REQUEST NO, 14:
Luk
16
of
Any and all documents evidencing the date(s) of each trip comprising the "approximately
17 30 amount of [sic] days" you spent “in California from 2000 - 2019" {referred to in paragraph 12
Ok 18 of your 4 November 21. 2019 declaration).
XE
19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14:
20
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
21
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
22
may have already been produced in this litigation.
23
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
24
RESPONDING PARTY has produced any non-privileged information responsive to this Request,
25
but other responsive information may have previously existed.
26
Mt
27
Mt
28
NG-V5401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4 [continued on next page]
-10-
CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE]
REQUEST NO. 15:
Any and all documents evidencing the purposets) of each Leip comprising the
“approximately 30 amount of [sc} dass” you spent “in California from 2000 - 20/9" (reterred to
in paragraph 12 of your November 21, 2019 declaration).
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15:
Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
may have already been produced in this litigation.
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
10
RESPONDING PARTY has produced any non-privileged information responsive to this Request,
11
but other responsive information may have previously existed.
12
REQUEST NO. 16:
13
Any and all documents evidencing the any pay ment(s) made for airfare and hotel charges
14
OE
as a resull of each trip comprising the “approximately 30 amount of [sic] days” you spent “in
Ob 15
California from 2000 - 2019" (referred to in paragraph 12 of your November 21. 2019
Li 16
oO
declaration).
17
Og 18
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16:
Ye Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY
19
responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and
20
may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY incorporates by
21
reference the response to Request No. 5 above.
22
RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry,
23
RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request,
24
which may have previously existed.
25
Mt
26
Mt
27
Preview
16CV301867 Santa Clara — Civil Electronically Filed WHGC, P.L.C. by Superior Court of CA, Jeffrey C.P. Wang, SBN 144414 County of Santa Clara, JeffreyWang@WHGCLaw.com on 11/24/2020 6:50 PM Michael G. York, SBN 89945 Michael York@WHGCLaw.com Reviewed By: R. Walker Kathleen E. Alparce, SBN 230935 Case #16CV301867 KathleenAlparce@WHGC.com Envelope: 5361668 Jessica A. Crabbe, SBN 263668 JessicaCrabbe@WHGCLaw.,com 1301 Dove Street, Suite 1050 Newport Beach, California 92660-2416 Telephone: (949) 833-8483 Facsimile: (866) 881-5007 Edwin K. Prather, SBN 190536 edwin@pratherlawoffices.com PRATHER LAW OFFICES 245 Fifth St., Suite 103 10 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telehone: (415) 881-7774 11 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants XINGKE ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., 12 LTD., formerly known as SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; and MUI LIANG TJOA, aka ML TJOA 13 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 15 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 16 17 SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD., CASE NO. 16CV301867 18 Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH 19 Vv. SERVICE OF SUMMONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 20 XINGKE ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. YORK CO., LTD.; XINGKE ELECTRONICS (HONG IN SUPPORT THEREOF 21 KONG) CO., LTD.; SINCOO ELECTRONICS| TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED; JINLONG DATE: December 9, 2020 22 MACHINERY & ELECTRONICS CO., LTD; TIME: 1:30 p.m. LIEW YEW SOON aka MARK LIEW; SINCO DEPT: 3 23 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; MUI LIANG DATE ACTION FILED: October 28, 2016 24 TJOA; JIN SHAO PENG; XU SHUGONG; TRIAL DATE: May 17, 2021 QUEK SEOW ENG; and DOES 5 through 20, 25 inclusive, 26 Defendants. 27 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION. 28 1 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS To Cross-defendants LIM JIT MING, aka BRYAN LIM, and JONATHAN CHEE, and to their attorneys of record: Cross-complainants submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Michael G. York in further opposition to Cross-defendants’ motion to quash service of summons on the Second Amended Cross-complaint. DATED: November 24, 2020 WHGC, P.L.C. By: ——— $< MICHAEL G. YORK Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants XINGKE 10 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD., formerly known as 11 SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka 12 MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; and MUI LIANG TJOA, 13 aka ML TJOA 14 IS) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION. In support of their motion to quash, Cross-defendants have each submitted a declaration describing what they claim to be their respective contacts with California. However, first, their declarations are vague, evasive, and/or misleading. Thus, the vagueness and evasiveness in their declarations should be interpreted against them and/or their claims should not be believed. (See 3 Witkin, Cal. Evid. (5" Ed.) Presentation at Trial, § 102, p. 159.) Second, in some cases, Cross-defendants have provided weaker and less satisfactory evidence when they could have provided stronger and more satisfactory evidence. Thus, the evidence should 10 also not be believed. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 128, p. 192.) ll Third, in some cases, Cross-defendants’ responses to discovery can be interpreted to mean 12 that they have destroyed evidence. If so, it should inferred that the evidence that was destroyed was 13 adverse to Cross-defendants’ claims. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 129, pp. 192-194.) 14 Under the circumstances, this Court should rule that Cross-defendants have sufficient 15 minimum contacts with California. 16 17 II. CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ CLAIMS. 18 A. Cross-defendant Lim’s Claims. 19 In the following paragraphs of his declaration filed on or about June 17, 2020, Cross- 20 defendant Lim claims the following: 21 12. From 2000 to 2019, he spent approximately 30 days in California “for short vacations or 22 to conduct business on behalf of my employer. Of those trips to California 5 where [sic] related to 23 this litigation.” 24 The statement is vague, evasive, and/or Mr. Lim could have provided stronger and more 25 satisfactory evidence. Of the approximately 30 days in California Mr. Lim spent for short vacations 26 or to conduct business on behalf of his employer, Mr. Lim does not state how many days were spent 27 conducting business and how many days were spent for vacations. Thus, it may be inferred that Mr. 28 Lim spent as many as 28 days in California conducting business. 3 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS, 6. His meeting (singular) in California has been limited to the scope of his employment. The statement is vague, evasive, and/or misleading. As just discussed, Mr. Lim states that five of his trips to California were related to this litigation and it may inferred that Mr. Lim spent as many as 28 days in California conducting business. Despite that, Mr. Lim claims he had only one meeting. 9. He is “not a shareholder or owner of any business or corporation that is registered in or conducts business transactions in California.” The statement is vague, evasive, and/or misleading. First, Mr. Lim is the owner of Plaintiff SinCo, and in this action and the related federal action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants stole 10 Plaintiffs customers, including customers in California. Despite that, Mr. Lim claims that Plaintiff 11 does not do business in California. 12 Second, Mr. Lim, in so stating, is suggesting that Plaintiff has no contacts with California. 13 However, Plaintiff does business with customers in California and has filed two lawsuits in 14 California, this one and the related federal action. 15 10. He does “not currently own any personal bank or investment accounts of any type in 16 California.” 17 The statement is vague, evasive, and/or Mr. Lim could have provided stronger and more 18 satisfactory evidence. Mr. Lim states that he does not currently have any such accounts. The 19 statement is “pregnant” with the admission that in the past Mr. Lim has had such accounts in 20 California, (See 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. (S" Ed.) Pleading, § 1068 ef seq., p. 504, ef seq.) However, 21 Mr. Lim has provided no information whatsoever regarding the accounts. 22 The vague, evasive, and/or misleading nature of Mr. Lim’s statements is even more 23 problematic in light of his vague and evasive responses to Cross-complainants’ request for 24 production of documents. 25 First, in response to a request for a copy of his passport, Mr. Lim produced a copy of his 26 passport issued April 6, 2015, but stated he destroyed his previous passport. (Exhibit “A,” p. 4.) 27 Second, in response to numerous requests, Mr. Lim states that he “does not currently have 28 any information [sic] responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed.” Mr. Lim’s 4 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS statement that the documents “may have previously existed” is vague and evasive, but can be interpreted to mean that the documents existed at one point in time but have been destroyed. The documents that may have previously existed and destroyed include documents regarding the following requests: 4. The purpose of any travel to or from the United States. (Exhibit “A,” p. 5.) 5. Payments made for airfare and hotel charges as a result of any travel to or from the United States. (Exhibit “A,” p. 5.) 7. The dates of all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. (Exhibit “A,” pp. 6-7.) 8. The location of all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. (Exhibit “A,” p. 7.) 10 9. The identities of the persons Mr. Lim at all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. ll (Exhibit “A,” pp. 7-8.) 12 10. The matters discussed at all meetings that Mr. Lim has had in California. (Exhibit “A,” 13 pp. 8-9.) 14 14. The dates of each trip that Mr. Lim has made to California. (Exhibit “A,” p. 10.) 15 15. The purpose of each trip that Mr. Lim made to California. (Exhibit “A,” p. 11.) 16 Mr. Lim’s statements can be interpreted to mean that Mr. Lim has destroyed evidence and, if 17 so, it should inferred that the evidence that was destroyed was adverse to Mr. Lim’s claims. (See 3 18 Witkin, supra, § 129, pp. 192-194.) 19 20 B. Cross-defendant Chee’s Claims. 21 Cross-defendant Chee’s declaration is also vague, evasive, and/or misleading, albeit not to 22 the same extent as Cross-defendant Lim’s. 23 In the following paragraph of his declaration filed on or about June 17, 2020, Cross- 24 defendant Chee claims the following: 25 9. He does “not currently own any personal bank or investment accounts of any type in 26 California.” 27 Just as in the case of Cross-defendant Lim, the statement is vague, evasive, and/or Mr. Chee 28 could have provided stronger and more satisfactory evidence. Mr. Chee states that he does not 5 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS currently have any such accounts. The statement is “pregnant” with the admission that in the past Mr. Chee has had such accounts in California. (See 5 Witkin, supra, § 1068 et seq., p. 504, et seq.) However, Mr. Chee has provided no information whatsoever regarding the accounts. Furthermore, Mr. Chee’s declaration is vague and evasive in that he completely ignores one of the most important issues. In his declaration, Mr. Chee completely fails to state how many times he has traveled to California, the purposes of his visits, etc. Mr. Chee could have produced stronger and more satisfactory evidence. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 128, p. 192.) Just as in the case of Cross-defendant Lim, the vague, evasive, and/or misleading nature of Mr. Chee’s statements is even more problematic in light of his vague and evasive responses to 10 Cross-complainants’ request for production of documents. 11 First, in response to a request for a copy of his passport, Mr. Chee produced a copy of his 12 passport issued August 12, 2017, but stated he destroyed his previous passport. (Exhibit “B,” p. 4.) 13 Second, in response to numerous requests, Mr. Chee states that responsive information [sic] 14 may exist with Plaintiff and may have already been produced, and that he “does not currently have 15 any information [sic] responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed.” 16 Mr. Chee’s statements that the documents may exist with Plaintiff and may have already been 17 produced, and that the documents “may have previously existed,” are vague and evasive, but, again, 18 the latter statement can be interpreted to mean that the documents existed at one point in time but 19 have been destroyed. 20 The documents that may have previously existed and destroyed, or may have already been 21 produced, include documents regarding the following requests: 22 4. The purpose of any travel to or from the United States. (Exhibit “B,” p. 5.) 23 5. Payments made for airfare and hotel charges as a result of any travel to or from the United 24 States. (Exhibit “B,” p. 5.) 25 7. The dates of all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. (Exhibit “B,” p. 7.) 26 8. The location of all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. (Exhibit “B,” pp . 7-8.) 27 9. The identities of the persons Mr. Chee at all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. 28 (Exhibit “B,” pp. 8-9.) 6 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS, 10. The matters discussed at all meetings that Mr. Chee has had in California. (Exhibit “B,” p. 9.) Mr. Chee’s statements can also be interpreted to mean that Mr. Chee has destroyed evidence and, if so, it should inferred that the evidence that was destroyed was adverse to Mr. Chee’s claims. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 129, pp. 192-194.) Furthermore, Plaintiff has produced almost 2.2 million documents. By stating only that the documents may exist with Plaintiff and may have already been produced but not identifying the documents, Mr. Chee has provided weaker and less satisfactory evidence when he could have produced stronger and more satisfactory evidence. (See 3 Witkin, supra, § 128, p. 192.) 10 11 Ill. CROSS-DEFENDANTS HAVE SUFFICIENT MINIMUM CONTACTS WITH 12 CALIFORNIA. 13 Given Cross-defendants’ vague, evasive, and/or misleading declarations and responses to 14 discovery, their providing weaker and less satisfactory evidence when they could have provided tS stronger and more satisfactory evidence, and the fact that they may have destroyed evidence, it 16 should be inferred as follows. First, Cross-defendants traveled to California for the purpose of 17 conducting business enough times, met with enough customers in California, discussed enough 18 business matters in California, and otherwise did enough business in California, that they do in fact 19 have sufficient minimum contacts with California. Second, if Cross-defendants had provided 20 stronger and more satisfactory evidence, which they could have provided, instead of weaker and less 21 satisfactory evidence, and/or, perhaps, not destroyed evidence, the evidence would show that they do 22 in fact have sufficient minimum contacts with California. 23 In any event, here, there is much more than a single act which, by itself, may suffice. (Weil 24 & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) { 3:240.1, p. 3-83.) 25 Under the circumstances, exercising jurisdiction over Cross-defendants does not offend traditional 26 notions of “fair play and substantial justice.” (See Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. 27 (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 446 [58 Cal.Rptr.2d 899].) 28 As to any suggestion that jurisdiction may not be exercised over Cross-defendants on the a CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS ground that they are employees of Plaintiff, the argument is without merit; jurisdiction may still be exercised. (Weil & Brown, supra, J 3:207.1, p. 3-71.) Finally, Cross-defendants should not be permitted to attempt to cure their failures in a reply. (See Weil & Brown, supra, 9:106.1, p. 9(1)-90-91.) IV. CONCLUSION. Cross-defendants’ motion to quash should be denied. However, if and to the extent that this Court believes that the motion should be granted due to lack of evidence because Cross-defendants failed to provide evidence Cross-complainants 10 requested, Cross-complainants respectfully request that this hearing be continued so that Cross- ll complainants may take Cross-defendants’ depositions. In Cross-complainants’ view, it is neither 12 expeditious nor cost effective to go though the law and motion process and that the best way to get to 13 the bottom of the issues is to take Cross-defendants’ depositions. 14 DATED: November 24, 2020 WHGC, P.L.C. 15 16 By: MICHAEL G. YORK 17 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants XINGKE 18 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD., formerly known as 19 SINCO ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka 20 MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; and MUI LIANG TJOA, 21 aka ML TJOA 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. YORK I, MICHAEL G. YORK, declare: 1. Iam an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and of counsel to WHGC, P.L.C., attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants in this action. I am submitting this declaration in support of Defendants and Cross-complainants’ Further Opposition to the Motion to Quash. I know these facts of my own personal knowledge and, if asked, would and could competently testify thereto. 2. According to the evidence Plainitff has provided in this action, Cross-defendant Lim is the owner of Plaintiff. 10 3. We served Cross-defendants with requests for production of documents and 11 Cross-defendants served responses to the requests. Attached to this Opposition as Exhibits “A” and 12 “B,” respectively, are the responses, which include the requests. 13 4. Cross-defendant Lim produced a copy of his passport issued April 6, 2015, but in response 14 to Cross-complainants’ request for production of documents stated he destroyed his previous 15 passport. 16 5. Cross-defendant Chee produced a copy of his passport issued August 12, 2017, but in 17 response to Cross-complainants’ request for production of documents stated he destroyed his 18 previous passport. 19 6. It was and is our position that Cross-defendants’ responses to the requests for production 20 of documents were insufficient. We met and conferred with Cross-defendants’ counsel regarding the 21 responses, but Cross-defendants refused to serve any further responses. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing 23 is true and correct. 24 DATED: November 24, 2020 MICHAEL G. YORK 25 26 27 28 9 CROSS-COMPLAINANTS’ FURTHER OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS EXHIBIT “A” TODD A. ROBERTS (SBN 129722) LAEL D. ANDARA (SBN 215416, JENNIFER E. ACHESON (SBN 130833) DANIEL A. GAITAN (SBN 326413) ROPERS MAJESKI PC 1001 Marshall Street, 5th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: 650.364.8200 Facsimile: 650.780.1701 Email: todd.roberts@ropers.com lael.andara@ropers.com jennifer.acheson@ropers.com daniel.gaitan@ropers.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA il 12 SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, Case No. 16CV301867 13 Plaintiff, CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR Om Vv. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET Ow 15 NUMBER ONE Lik XINGKE ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) 16 CO., LTD.; XINGKE ELECTRONICS Action Filed: October 28, 2016 oF (HONG KONG) CO., LTD.; SINCOO Trial Date: May 17, 2021 17 ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY CO., OF 18 LIMITED.; JINLONG MACHINERY & ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka MARK LIEW; SINCO 19 ELECTRONICS (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; MUI LIANG 20 TJOA; JIN SHAO PING; XU SHUGONG, QUEK SEOW ENG and DOES 5 through 20, 21 inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION 24 PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Complainants XINGKE ELECTRONICS 25 (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.; LIEW YEW SOON aka MARK LIEW; NG CHER YONG aka CY NG; MUI LIANG TJOA, aka 26 ML TJOA 27 RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant BRYAN LIM 28 REE AMBER Is st50. ONE ie CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] I PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1 RESPONDING PARTY, pursuant to the provisions of section 2031.210 et seq. of the California Code of Civil Procedure, hereby responds to the Request for Production of Documents, Set No. One, propounded by PROPOUNDING PARTY, as follows: 2 RESPONDING PARTY will not be producing information or documents previously produced by parties in this action. Specifically, RESPONDING PARTY is an employee of Plaintiff SinCo Technologies PTE LTD., who has previously produced RESPONDING PARTY’s work emails and related information that would potentially be responsive to these requests in the millions of pages of information produced from January 2017 10 to present. RESPONDING PARTY became an employee of Plaintiff in January of 2013. Il 3 These responses do not represent a general appearance based on RESPONDING 12 PARTY’s reliance and assertion of CCP Subdivision (e)(1) of section 418.10. By these responses 13 RESPONDING PARTY reserves the right to challenge lack of personal jurisdiction, inconvenient 14 forum, and delay in prosecution. OE Om 15 4 Information responsive to the requests identified below will be produced by mail Lik 16 in the physical form demanded by PROPOUNDING PARTY. o€ 17 5 To the extent that RESPONDING PARTY identifies certain writings or delineates 18 any facts, he does so without prejudice to establish at a later date any additional facts that may be & 19 contained within or discovered as a result of any subsequently-discovered facts of any additional 20 investigation and discovery. 21 6 The responses set forth herein are given without prejudice to RESPONDING 22 PARTY 's right to produce any subsequently-discovered facts or writings or to add, modify, or 23 otherwise change or amend the responses herein. The information hereinafter set forth is true and 24 correct to the best knowledge of RESPONDING PARTY as of this date, and is subject to 25 correction for inadvertent errors, mistakes or omissions. 26 7 These responses are based on information presently available to RESPONDING 27 PARTY. RESPONDING PARTY responses are based upon and necessarily limited to records 28 and information still in existence, presently available, and obtained in the course of preparing NG-VS401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4 ae CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] these responses. Consequently, RESPONDING PARTY expressly reserves the right to change, amend, modify, or supplement these responses in the event of error, mistake, or omission, and as RESPONDING PARTY ascertains additional facts, makes analyses, completes legal research, or obtains documents. RESPONDING PARTY also reserves the right to make any changes to these responses if, at any time, additional or more accurate documents become available, and to establish at a later date any additional facts that may be contained within or discovered as a result of any additional documents. The time frame of these events occurred between 2015 to 2020, so some responsive information may have previously existed, but was not preserved as RESPONDING PARTY had no reasonable apprehension he would be a party to this action. 10 This understanding is based on the delay in RESPONDING PARTY bringing these claims three il years after PLAINTIFF brought the action, and further delay after RESPONDING PARTY’s 12 deposition of RESPONDING PARTY as an employee of Plaintiff on April 5, 2019. 13 8 RESPONDING PARTY reserves the right to condition the production of 14 documents containing confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets on the OB Om 15 PROPOUNDING PARTY’s Agreement that RESPONDING PARTY is equally available to avail Luk 16 himself of the Court’s January 26, 2017, Protective Order, to which RESPONDING PARTY oF OF 7 was not a participant. 18 I. GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE COMBINED INSTRUCTIONS AND ce DEFINITIONS 9 9. RESPONDING PARTY generally objects to the scope of the definition of 20 “DOCUMENTS" to the extent it has multiple definitions and exceeds the scope set forth in 21 California Civil Procedure (CCP) § 2031.010 in that these requests seek documents that are in the 22 possession, custody, or control of SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and are therefore not in 23 the possession, custody, or control of RESPONDING PARTY. RESPONDING PARTY will not 24 undertake to produce documents that are not within his possession, custody, or control. 25 10. RESPONDING PARTY generally objects to these Requests and their combined 26 Instructions and Definitions to the extent they purport to impose a duty beyond that required by 27 28 NG-V5401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4 ae CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] CCP §2031.010; CCP §2031.030; §2031.210; §2031.220; §2031.210; and §2031.210. RESPONDING PARTY assumes no duty beyond that imposed by law. Til. SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND/OR OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUESTS REQUEST NO. I: A complete copy of all pages of any passport sou have had from 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY responds that he will produce all responsive information in his possession, custody, or control pursuant to the January 26, 2017 protective order. RESPONDING PARTY’s passport 10 information is herein designated as CONFIDENTIAL pursuant to the January 26, 2017 11 protective order, as it contains personally identifiable Information. RESPONDING PARTY also 12 acknowledges that he previously maintained a prior Passport that was destroyed upon the 13 issuance of the current one being produced. 14 REQUEST NO. 2: OB Om 15 Any and all documents you sent to or received from any United States governmental Lik 16 agency regarding any travel to or from the United States from 2000 to the present. of Ok 17 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2: 18 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY & 19 responds that responsive information may exist with his employer SINCO TECHNOLOGIES 20 PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY 21 responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY has found a 22 single document information responsive to this Request, however there may have previously 23 existed other documents responsive to this request. 24 REQUEST NO. 3: 25 Any and all documents evidenving the daterspofans wavel tor from the | ated States 26 from 2N00 toto ththe 7a resent 27 28 NG-VS401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4 -4- CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY responds that he will produce all responsive information in his possession, custody, or control pursuant to the January 26, 2017 protective order. REQUEST NO. 4: Any and all documents es idencing the purpose(s) of any travel to or from the United States from 2U00 to the present. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4: 11 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 12 responds that responsive information may exist with his employer SINCO TECHNOLOGIES 13 PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. 14 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, OE Ob 15 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request, Lui 16 which may have previously existed. o- 17 REQUEST NO. 3: OF 18 Any and all documents evidencing any payment(s) made Jor airfare and hotel! charges as a OB 19 result of any travel to or from the United States from 2000 to the present. 20 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5: 21 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 22 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 23 may have already been produced in this litigation. 24 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 25 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request, 26 which may have previously existed. 27 28 NG-VS401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4 -5- CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] REQUEST NO. 6: \ny and all documents ev idenciy any compensation of other benetils sou received as result of any travel to or from the United States from 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this request in vague and fails to define the term “other benefits,” and will be read this Request to mean money directly related to travel, separate and apart from his general compensation. 10 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 11 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request, 12 which may have previously existed. 13 E UES 14 On Any and all documents evidencing the date(s) of all meeting(s) that you have had in Om 15 California (referred to in paragraph 6 of sour November 21, 2019 declaration) from 2000 to the Li 16 present. os 17 Ok 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7: Ce Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 19 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 20 may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this 21 request as it would call for the production of Attorney-Client communications he has had with his 22 counsel surrounding this dispute from July of 2016 to present. The parties had previously agreed 23 that communications between counsel and a party from October 2016 to Present would be 24 deemed as Attomey-Client communications and would not need to be set out on a privilege log 25 pursuant to CCP §2031.240. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects to the extent that it 26 requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY, specifically such as 27 28 NG-V540LA9C:4827-2543-5850.4 -6- CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s involvement in this litigation and the related Federal action. RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any non-privileged information responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed. REQUEST NO. 8: Any and all documents evidencing the location(s) of all meetingts) that you have had in California (referred to in paragraph 6 ol your November 2!. 2019 declaration) from 2000 to the present. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8: 11 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 12 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 13 may have already been produced in this litigation. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects 14 to the extent that it requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY, Ot Lil Oh 15 specifically such as documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s involvement in this 16 litigation and the related Federal action. o- 17 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, OR 18 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any non-privileged information responsive to Xe 19 this Request, which may have previously existed. 20 REQUEST } 9 21 Any and all documents evidencing the namets} and title(s) or capacity (ies) of the 22 person(s) with whom you met at all me: eLingts) that vou hase had in California treferred to in 23 paragraph 6 of your November 21. 2019 declaration) trom 2000 to the present 24 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9: 25 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 26 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 27 may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this 28 Faves as-it, would call for the production of Attorney-Client communications he has had with his eae CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] United States counsel. The parties had previously agreed that communications between counsel and a party from October 2016 to Present would be deemed as Attorney-Client communications and would not need to be set out on a privilege log pursuant to CCP §2031.240. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects to the extent that it requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY, specifically such as documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s involvement in this litigation and the related Federal action. RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any non-privileged information responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed. 10 REQUEST NO. 10: 11 Any and all documents evidencing all matter(s) discussed at all meeting(s) that you have 12 had in California (referred to in paragraph 6 of your November 21. 2019 declaration) from 2000 13 to the present. 14 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10: OE Om 15 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY Lui 16 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and Oo. OF 17 may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this 18 request as it would call for the production of Attorney-Client communications he has had with his 19 United States counsel surrounding this dispute from July of 2016 to present. The parties had 20 previously agreed that communications between counsel and a party from October 2016 to 21 Present would be deemed as Attomey-Client communications and would not need to be set out on 22 a privilege log pursuant to CCP §2031.240. Furthermore, RESPONDING PARTY objects to the 23 extent that it requests information already in the possession of PROPOUNDING PARTY, 24 specifically such as documents relating to RESPONDING PARTY’s invoivement in this 25 litigation and the related Federal action. 26 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 27 RESPONDING PARTY has produced any non-privileged information responsive to this Request, 28 but other res) onsive information may have previously existed. NG-VS5401A9C:48; F 7-2543-5850.4 -8- CROSS-DEFED ANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] REQUEST NO. U1: Any and all documents evidencing any income you have received as a result of activities you participated in while in California from 2000 to the present. RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this request in vague and fails to define the term “any income,” and will be read this Request to mean money directly related to travel, separate and apart from his general compensation and herein 10 incorporate the response to Request No. 6 above. 11 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 12 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request, 13 which may have previously existed. 14 UO 15 REQUEST NO. 12: 09 Any and all documents evidencing any ownership interest you have had in any business 16 that has conducted business in California from 2000 to the present. 17 OF 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12: Oe Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 19 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 20 may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY also objects as this 21 request in vague and fails to define the term “has conducted business,” and will read this Request 22 to mean a California incorporated business. RESPONDING PARTY further objects to the extent 23 this request is overbroad and irrelevant as to jurisdictional discovery, as an ownership interest or 24 purchase of stock does not confer jurisdiction. Conley v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 190 U. S. 406, 25 1903); Peterson v. Chicago R. I. & P. Ry. 205 U. S. 364, (1907); Philadelphia & Reading Ey. v. 26 McKibben, 243 U. S. 264, (1917); Canon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U. S. 333, 27 (1925); Gravely Motor Plow & Cultivator Co. v. H. V. Carter Co., 193 F.2d 158, 160-61 (9th Cir. 28 NG-VS40LA9C:4827-2543-5850.4 -9- CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] 1 1951). These cases stand for the proposition that the mere ownership of a company which is doing business in the state does not mean that the RESPONDING PARTY is “doing business” there so as to render itself liable to process. RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request, which may have previously existed. REQUEST NO. 13: Any and all documents evidencing any personal financial accounts that you have had in California from 2000 to the present. 10 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13: ll Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 12 responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, RESPONDING PARTY does not 13 currently have any information responsive to this Request, and to his recollection and 14 understanding no such personal financial accounts existed in California from 2000 to present. OE ih 15 REQUEST NO, 14: Luk 16 of Any and all documents evidencing the date(s) of each trip comprising the "approximately 17 30 amount of [sic] days" you spent “in California from 2000 - 2019" {referred to in paragraph 12 Ok 18 of your 4 November 21. 2019 declaration). XE 19 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14: 20 Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 21 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 22 may have already been produced in this litigation. 23 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 24 RESPONDING PARTY has produced any non-privileged information responsive to this Request, 25 but other responsive information may have previously existed. 26 Mt 27 Mt 28 NG-V5401A9C:4827-2543-5850.4 [continued on next page] -10- CROSS-DEFENDANT BRYAN LIM'S RESPONSE TO RFPD [SET ONE] REQUEST NO. 15: Any and all documents evidencing the purposets) of each Leip comprising the “approximately 30 amount of [sc} dass” you spent “in California from 2000 - 20/9" (reterred to in paragraph 12 of your November 21, 2019 declaration). RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15: Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 10 RESPONDING PARTY has produced any non-privileged information responsive to this Request, 11 but other responsive information may have previously existed. 12 REQUEST NO. 16: 13 Any and all documents evidencing the any pay ment(s) made for airfare and hotel charges 14 OE as a resull of each trip comprising the “approximately 30 amount of [sic] days” you spent “in Ob 15 California from 2000 - 2019" (referred to in paragraph 12 of your November 21. 2019 Li 16 oO declaration). 17 Og 18 RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16: Ye Subject to and without waiving the General Objections above, RESPONDING PARTY 19 responds that responsive information may exist with SINCO TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD, and 20 may have already been produced in this litigation. RESPONDING PARTY incorporates by 21 reference the response to Request No. 5 above. 22 RESPONDING PARTY responds that after a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, 23 RESPONDING PARTY does not currently have any information responsive to this Request, 24 which may have previously existed. 25 Mt 26 Mt 27