Preview
1 CHORA YOUNG & MANASSERIAN LLP
Armen Manasserian, Esq. (State Bar No. 288199) ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2 Cameron Totten, Esq. (State Bar No. 180765) Superior Court of California
3 650 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, Suite 304 County of Santa Barbara
Pasadena, California 91107 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
1/4/2022 11:08 PM
4 Tel.: (626) 744-1838 By: Sarah Sisto, Deputy
Fax: (626) 744-3167
5 Email: cameron@cym.law
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 Butler America, LLC
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – ANACAPA DIVISION
10
11 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited Case No.: 20CV03877
liability company,
12
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
13 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT
vs. OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
14 ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER
15 UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS
company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS GROUP,
16 GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington INC. AND UNIFIED
corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, an COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., TO
17 individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an individual; PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR
18 MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an individual; PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an individual; JIMMIE (SET ONE)
19 GARRETT BAKER, JR., an individual;
WESTELE UTILITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
20 California limited liability company; and DOES 1 Hearing Date: April 1, 2022
21 through 50, inclusive, Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: 4
22 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Donna D. Geck
23
24
25
26
27
28
////
1
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE
2 Per Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff Butler America, LLC
3 (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits its Separate Statement of Discovery in Dispute (“Separate
4 Statement”) in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses by
5 Defendants UCOMMG, LLC and UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
6 (“Defendants”) to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 3-5, 9-13 and 16-21
7 (“Motion”). In the interest of efficiency, Plaintiff has combined the requests and responses by
8 each of the Defendants into this Separate Statement as they are identical. Moreover, the
9 concurrently filed Motion provides additional legal analysis as to Defendants’ objections and why
10 further responses are required.
11 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
12 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU
13 and Frontier Communications offices or locations in California, including, but not limited to, all
14 solicited and unsolicited incoming and outgoing COMMUNICATIONS.
15 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3:
16 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
17 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
18 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
19 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
20 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
21 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
22 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
23 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
24 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
25 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
26 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
27 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
28
2
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
2 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
3 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
4 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
5 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
6 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
7 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier
8 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A
9 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial,
10 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court
11 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984)
12 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of
13 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his
14 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3)
15 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
16 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest
17 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S.
18 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
19 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
20 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU
21 and Frontier Communications RELATED TO services provided in California, including, but not
22 limited to, all solicited and unsolicited incoming and outgoing COMMUNICATIONS.
23 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:
24 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
25 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
26 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
27 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
28 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
3
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
2 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
3 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
4 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
5 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
6 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
7 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
9 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
10 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
11 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
12 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
13 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
14 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier
15 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A
16 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial,
17 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court
18 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984)
19 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of
20 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his
21 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3)
22 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
23 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest
24 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S.
25 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
26 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
27 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all accounts with banks or financial
28 institutions in California.
4
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5:
2 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
3 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
4 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
5 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with
6 reasonable particularity the category of documents sought, as required by the Code of Civil
7 Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in
8 scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also
9 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client
10 privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or other privileges, protections, or doctrines of
11 similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery in that it purports to
12 require the production of documents which, at least in part, are neither relevant nor reasonably
13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request may call for electronically
14 stored information that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, including
15 historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant objects on the grounds that disclosure of the
16 information sought by the request infringes upon its constitutional and privacy rights and
17 constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. This request is unintelligible as phrased.
18 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
19 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
20 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Defendants’
21 banking activities in California is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, continuous, and
22 systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal.
23 App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-
24 416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of Defendants’ purposefully availing
25 themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the
26 benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.
27 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further
28 response is required.
5
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
2 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU
3 entered into with BUSINESSES with one or more locations in California.
4 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9:
5 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
6 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
7 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
8 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
9 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
10 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
11 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
12 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
13 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
14 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
15 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
16 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
17 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
18 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
19 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
20 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
21 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
22 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
23 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as entering into
24 contracts and doing business with California businesses is evidence, at least in part, of
25 “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v.
26 Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v.
27 Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one
28 or more of the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully
6
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 directing his or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum
2 activities, or (3) purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities
3 within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies,
4 Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz
5 (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
6 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
7 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU
8 entered into with Frontier Communications.
9 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
10 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
11 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
12 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
13 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
14 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
15 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
16 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
17 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
18 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
19 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
20 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
21 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
22 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
23 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
24 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
25 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
26 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
27 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
28 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier
7
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A
2 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial,
3 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court
4 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984)
5 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of
6 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his
7 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3)
8 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
9 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest
10 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S.
11 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
12 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
13 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU
14 entered into with Frontier Communications for services or work performed or provided in
15 California.
16 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11:
17 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
18 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
19 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
20 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
21 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
22 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
23 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
24 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
25 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
26 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
27 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
28 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
8
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
2 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
3 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
4 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
5 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
6 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
7 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier
8 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A
9 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial,
10 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court
11 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984)
12 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of
13 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his
14 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3)
15 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
16 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest
17 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S.
18 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
19 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
20 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU
21 entered into with California PERSONS.
22 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12:
23 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
24 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by
25 California Civil Code § 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can
26 commence. As phrased, this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the
27 overbroad definition of “YOU.” Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable
28 particularity the category of documents sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure.
9
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 Instead, this request is impermissibly overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is
2 therefore oppressive, harassing, burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this
3 request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney
4 work product doctrine and/or other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This
5 request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of
6 documents which, at least in part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
7 discovery of admissible evidence. This request may call for electronically stored information that
8 is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or
9 archived electronic data. Defendant objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information
10 sought by the request infringes upon its constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and
11 privacy rights of third parties.
12 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
13 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
14 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as entering into
15 contracts and doing business with California businesses, entities or contractors is evidence, at least
16 in part, of “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche,
17 Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de
18 Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be
19 evidence of one or more of the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1)
20 purposefully directing his or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit
21 from forum activities, or (3) purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting
22 activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons
23 Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v
24 Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
25 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
26 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU
27 entered into with BUSINESSES headquartered in California.
28 //
10
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
2 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
3 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
4 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
5 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
6 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
7 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
8 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
9 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
10 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
11 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
12 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
13 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
14 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
15 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
16 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
17 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
18 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
19 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
20 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as entering into
21 contracts and doing business with California businesses is evidence, at least in part, of
22 “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v.
23 Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v.
24 Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one
25 or more of the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully
26 directing his or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum
27 activities, or (3) purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities
28 within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies,
11
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz
2 (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
3 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
4 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO each and every transaction between YOU and
5 Frontier Communications in California.
6 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16:
7 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
8 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
9 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
10 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
11 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
12 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
13 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
14 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
15 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
16 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
17 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
18 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
19 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
20 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
21 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
22 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
23 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE:
24 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit.
25 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier
26 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A
27 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial,
28 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court
12
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (SET ONE)
1 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984)
2 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of
3 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his
4 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3)
5 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
6 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest
7 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S.
8 462). Accordingly, a further response is required.
9 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
10 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO each and every client or customer of YOURS that
11 were or are headquartered, located, residents of, or do business in California.
12 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:
13 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff
14 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code §
15 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this
16 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.”
17 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents
18 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly
19 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing,
20 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
21 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or
22 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of
23 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in
24 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
25 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible
26 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant
27 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its
28 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties.
13
PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DI
Preview
1 CHORA YOUNG & MANASSERIAN LLP Armen Manasserian, Esq. (State Bar No. 288199) ELECTRONICALLY FILED 2 Cameron Totten, Esq. (State Bar No. 180765) Superior Court of California 3 650 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, Suite 304 County of Santa Barbara Pasadena, California 91107 Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 1/4/2022 11:08 PM 4 Tel.: (626) 744-1838 By: Sarah Sisto, Deputy Fax: (626) 744-3167 5 Email: cameron@cym.law 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 Butler America, LLC 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA – ANACAPA DIVISION 10 11 BUTLER AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited Case No.: 20CV03877 liability company, 12 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF 13 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE IN SUPPORT vs. OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 14 ORDER COMPELLING FURTHER 15 UCOMMG, LLC, a Nevada limited liability RESPONSES BY DEFENDANTS company; UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, 16 GROUP, INC., a dissolved Washington INC. AND UNIFIED corporation; KENNETH W. NEWBATT, an COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., TO 17 individual; BIANCA NEWBATT, an individual; PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR 18 MITCHELL C. LIPKIN, an individual; PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS MICHAEL J. BELLAS, an individual; JIMMIE (SET ONE) 19 GARRETT BAKER, JR., an individual; WESTELE UTILITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a 20 California limited liability company; and DOES 1 Hearing Date: April 1, 2022 21 through 50, inclusive, Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 4 22 Defendants. Judge: Hon. Donna D. Geck 23 24 25 26 27 28 //// 1 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE 2 Per Rule 3.1345 of the California Rules of Court, Plaintiff Butler America, LLC 3 (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits its Separate Statement of Discovery in Dispute (“Separate 4 Statement”) in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Compelling Further Responses by 5 Defendants UCOMMG, LLC and UNIFIED COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC. 6 (“Defendants”) to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 3-5, 9-13 and 16-21 7 (“Motion”). In the interest of efficiency, Plaintiff has combined the requests and responses by 8 each of the Defendants into this Separate Statement as they are identical. Moreover, the 9 concurrently filed Motion provides additional legal analysis as to Defendants’ objections and why 10 further responses are required. 11 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 12 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU 13 and Frontier Communications offices or locations in California, including, but not limited to, all 14 solicited and unsolicited incoming and outgoing COMMUNICATIONS. 15 DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 3: 16 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 17 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 18 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 19 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 20 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 21 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 22 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 23 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 24 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 25 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 26 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 27 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 28 2 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 2 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 3 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 4 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 5 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 6 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 7 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier 8 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A 9 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, 10 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court 11 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 12 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of 13 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his 14 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3) 15 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 16 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest 17 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 18 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 19 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 20 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all COMMUNICATIONS between YOU 21 and Frontier Communications RELATED TO services provided in California, including, but not 22 limited to, all solicited and unsolicited incoming and outgoing COMMUNICATIONS. 23 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: 24 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 25 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 26 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 27 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 28 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 3 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 2 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 3 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 4 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 5 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 6 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 7 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 9 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 10 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 11 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 12 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 13 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 14 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier 15 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A 16 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, 17 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court 18 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 19 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of 20 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his 21 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3) 22 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 23 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest 24 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 25 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 26 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 27 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all accounts with banks or financial 28 institutions in California. 4 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: 2 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 3 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 4 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 5 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with 6 reasonable particularity the category of documents sought, as required by the Code of Civil 7 Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in 8 scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also 9 objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client 10 privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or other privileges, protections, or doctrines of 11 similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery in that it purports to 12 require the production of documents which, at least in part, are neither relevant nor reasonably 13 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This request may call for electronically 14 stored information that is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, including 15 historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant objects on the grounds that disclosure of the 16 information sought by the request infringes upon its constitutional and privacy rights and 17 constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. This request is unintelligible as phrased. 18 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 19 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 20 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Defendants’ 21 banking activities in California is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, continuous, and 22 systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. 23 App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414- 24 416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of Defendants’ purposefully availing 25 themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thus invoking the 26 benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 27 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further 28 response is required. 5 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 2 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU 3 entered into with BUSINESSES with one or more locations in California. 4 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 9: 5 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 6 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 7 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 8 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 9 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 10 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 11 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 12 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 13 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 14 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 15 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 16 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 17 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 18 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 19 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 20 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 21 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 22 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 23 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as entering into 24 contracts and doing business with California businesses is evidence, at least in part, of 25 “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. 26 Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. 27 Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one 28 or more of the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully 6 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 directing his or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum 2 activities, or (3) purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities 3 within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, 4 Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz 5 (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 6 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 7 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU 8 entered into with Frontier Communications. 9 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10: 10 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 11 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 12 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 13 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 14 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 15 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 16 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 17 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 18 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 19 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 20 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 21 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 22 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 23 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 24 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 25 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 26 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 27 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 28 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier 7 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A 2 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, 3 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court 4 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 5 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of 6 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his 7 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3) 8 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 9 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest 10 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 11 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 12 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 13 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU 14 entered into with Frontier Communications for services or work performed or provided in 15 California. 16 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: 17 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 18 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 19 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 20 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 21 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 22 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 23 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 24 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 25 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 26 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 27 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 28 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 8 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 2 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 3 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 4 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 5 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 6 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 7 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier 8 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A 9 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, 10 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court 11 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 12 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of 13 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his 14 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3) 15 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 16 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest 17 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 18 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 19 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 20 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU 21 entered into with California PERSONS. 22 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: 23 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 24 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by 25 California Civil Code § 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can 26 commence. As phrased, this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the 27 overbroad definition of “YOU.” Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable 28 particularity the category of documents sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. 9 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 Instead, this request is impermissibly overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is 2 therefore oppressive, harassing, burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this 3 request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney 4 work product doctrine and/or other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This 5 request is beyond the scope of permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of 6 documents which, at least in part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the 7 discovery of admissible evidence. This request may call for electronically stored information that 8 is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or 9 archived electronic data. Defendant objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information 10 sought by the request infringes upon its constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and 11 privacy rights of third parties. 12 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 13 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 14 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as entering into 15 contracts and doing business with California businesses, entities or contractors is evidence, at least 16 in part, of “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, 17 Ltd. v. Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de 18 Colombia v. Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be 19 evidence of one or more of the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) 20 purposefully directing his or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit 21 from forum activities, or (3) purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting 22 activities within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons 23 Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v 24 Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 25 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 26 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO any and all contracts and agreements that YOU 27 entered into with BUSINESSES headquartered in California. 28 // 10 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13: 2 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 3 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 4 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 5 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 6 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 7 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 8 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 9 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 10 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 11 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 12 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 13 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 14 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 15 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 16 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 17 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 18 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 19 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 20 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as entering into 21 contracts and doing business with California businesses is evidence, at least in part, of 22 “substantial, continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. 23 Superior Court (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. 24 Hall (1984) 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one 25 or more of the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully 26 directing his or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum 27 activities, or (3) purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities 28 within the forum state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, 11 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz 2 (1985) 471 U.S. 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 3 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 4 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO each and every transaction between YOU and 5 Frontier Communications in California. 6 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 16: 7 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 8 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 9 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 10 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 11 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 12 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 13 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 14 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 15 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 16 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 17 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 18 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 20 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 21 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 22 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 23 REASONS FOR COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE: 24 For the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendants’ objections lack merit. 25 Additionally, this Request is related to the jurisdictional issues in this matter as Frontier 26 Communications may have been or currently is a client of Defendants in California. A 27 relationship between Defendants and Frontier is evidence, at least in part, of “substantial, 28 continuous, and systematic” contacts in California. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. v. Superior Court 12 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY IN DISPUTE RE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (SET ONE) 1 (2005) 130 Cal. App. 4th 782, 796 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall (1984) 2 466 U.S. 408, 414-416). Alternatively, the documents sought may be evidence of one or more of 3 the following elements necessary to establish personal jurisdiction: (1) purposefully directing his 4 or her activities at forum residents, (2) purposefully deriving benefit from forum activities, or (3) 5 purposefully availing himself or herself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum 6 state, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest 7 Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 434, 446 (citing Burger King Carp, v Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 8 462). Accordingly, a further response is required. 9 PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 10 All DOCUMENTS which RELATE TO each and every client or customer of YOURS that 11 were or are headquartered, located, residents of, or do business in California. 12 DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: 13 Objection. Defendant objects on the ground that discovery is premature because Plaintiff 14 has utterly failed to provide its trade secret disclosure as mandated by California Civil Code § 15 2019.210, and this issue must be resolved before discovery can commence. As phrased, this 16 request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, particularly as to the overbroad definition of “YOU.” 17 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to describe with reasonable particularity the category of documents 18 sought, as required by the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, this request is impermissibly 19 overbroad as it is not reasonably limited in scope, and is therefore oppressive, harassing, 20 burdensome, and unintelligible. Defendant also objects to this request to the extent that it seeks 21 documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine and/or 22 other privileges, protections, or doctrines of similar effect. This request is beyond the scope of 23 permissible discovery in that it purports to require the production of documents which, at least in 24 part, are neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 25 This request may call for electronically stored information that is not reasonably accessible 26 because of undue burden or expense, including historic and/or archived electronic data. Defendant 27 objects on the grounds that disclosure of the information sought by the request infringes upon its 28 constitutional and privacy rights and constitutional and privacy rights of third parties. 13 PLAINTIFF’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF DI