Preview
DRU ANNE KEEGAN, ESQ. Gate Bar No. 157076)
FILED
AL
BY FAX
KEEGAN & ASSOCIATES AMEDA COUNTY
Attomeys at Law September 2009
28,
San
San Jose. Californie
Jose,
California
95112 : rueByR
aES court
Lvs)
Telephone:>
(408)297-9986 ¥ Rosanne
Case,
Deputy
Facsimile:
(408)297-9978 CASE NUMBER:
RG08422174
AttorneyforDefendants/Cross-Complainants
7)
JAMES CAMERON andNICOLE JENKINS
Dn
“I
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Oo
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
{UnlimitedJurisdiction]
YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., CASE NO: RG08422174
ee
Plaintiff, NICOLE JENKINS’ OPPOSITION TO
YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C.’s
ee
v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS
ee
JAMES CAMERON JENKINS, NICOLE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND FOR
ee
JENKINS, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,
MONETARY SANCTIONS
ae
ee
JAMES CAMERON JENKINS andNICOLE
JENKINS, Date: October13,2009
Time: 3:15p.m.
ee
: Dept: 24
Cross-Complainants, Won. Patrick
Zika
ee
v.
eeet
YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C.,
et
JIANGPING XIE, JIANGYONG XIE,
ee
JIANGQIANG XIE,and ROES 1-50,
inclusive,
Cross-Defendants.
Ne
31 East Julian St, San Jose, California 95112
& ASSOCIATES
Defendant/Cross-Complaimant
NICOLE JENKINSopposesPlaintiff/Cross-Defendant
YOTRIO
INTERNATIONAL, LLC’s (hereinafter,
“YOTRIO”)Motionto CompelFurtherResponsestoFirst
Setof
Phone: (408} 297-9986
RequestsforProduction
of Documentsand for
Monetary Sanctions
asfollows:
bt
SOD
itt
KEEGAN
nN
NICOLE JENKINS’ OPPOSITION TO YOTRIO’S MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1
Lyd 8/66-/62-80r7 SHALVIDOSSV8 NYSFIdY dee:zo60 gzdes
1 I.INTRODUCTION
2 The instant
motionpertains
to17document requests
servedbymailonNICOLE JENKINS
3 ||Ghereinafter,
“NICOLE”)on oraboutApril3, 2009.
YOTRIO requested
thesame documentsfrom NICOLE’S
4 | husband,
JAMES CAMERON JENKINS(hereinafter,
collectively
“the
JENKINS”),andfiled
an identical
motion
5 jj against
him aswell.JAMES CAMERON JENKINS submitshis
own opposition
tothepresent
motion,
6 || mirroring
this
briefinall relevant
aspects.
7 As set
forthbelow,YOTRIO’Sdocument requests
were andremainoverbroadandcallfordocuments
8 ||protected
framdisclosure
byrecognized
privilege.
Accordingly,
theyrespectfully
request
thattheCourt
9 || deny
YOTRIO’smotions andawardthem monetarysanctions.
10 TI.BACKGROUND
11 YOTRIO’Smotion concerns17documentrequests
generally
secking
all documents
relating
to:(2)
12 | Bond Manufacturing
Company, a non-party
tothisaction;
(6)
The JENKINS’personal
bank account
13 || statements;
(7)TheJENKINS’personal
telephonerecords;
(10)
The JENKINS’cross-claims;
(13)
The
14 || JENKINS’
presentemployment;(14)
contracts
betweenThe JENKINS’andBond Manufacturing
Company;
15 || (6)
The JENKINS’federal
andstate
taxreturns;
(17)
The JENKINS’travel
expenses;
(18)
The JENKINS’
16 ||attorney’s
fees;
(19)The JENKINS’
moving expenses;
(21)
The JENKINS legal
right
towork intheUnited
17 | States;
(22 27)communicationsbetweenTheJENKINS’and YOTRIC’Scustomers;
and (28)
The JENKINS’
18 || ownership
of BondManufacturing
Company.
19 ‘The JENKINS’
servedtheir
responses
tothedocument requests
on May6, 2009.The FENKINS’
20 }| interposed
objections
tosome of the
requests,
butagreedtoproduceallrelevant,
non-privileged
documents
21 |)intheir
possession,
custody
or control.
Afterinitially
meetingandconferring,
andsubsequently
producing
22 | all relevant,
non-privileged
documents,
YOTRIO filedthe
presentmotions,
withouranyfurther
attemptsto
23 |l meet
and confer.Thereafter,
YOTRIO requestedthat JAMES
drophisdiscovery
motionagainst
YOTRIO
41 East Julian St., San Jose, California y5i12
24 || which
was set
tobe heardon October6, 2009,
in return
fora dismissal
of the
present
motions. Counselfor
ASSOCIATES
25 || the JENKINS
refusedtodismiss
JAMES’discovery
motion,and accordingly,
thepresent
motionswerekept
Bhone: (408) 297-9986
26 | on calendar.
See,
Declaration
of DruAnne KeeganinOppositiontoYotrioInternational,
L-L.C.’s
Motion
KEEGAN &
27 | toCompel Further
ResponsestoFirstSet
of Requests
forProductionofDocuments andDocument
RinneWranre renee rae
et wn Seems.
Boreron
Deena
cems ea Brarmer
nan Doninietian ac Racmsasre
2
Zid 9/66-/ 62-807 SALVIOOSSV 8 NVSDSA™M dor:zo60 gzdes
1} ProductionandforMonetarySanctions
(hereinafter,
“Keegan Decl.”),
{] 7,
Exhibit“C.””
2 TH. ARGUMENT
3 A. YOTRIO’S DEMANDS CLEARLY EXCEED THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OFDISCOVERY
4 The scopeof discovery
is limited
tomatters
thatarenotprivileged
and that
are“relevant
tothe
5 || subject
matter
involvedinthependingaction
or tothedetermination
of anymotionmade inthataction,
if
6 ||thematter
is itself admissible
inevidenceorappearsreasonably
calculated
toleadtothediscovery
of
7 || admissible
evidence.”
C.C.P.§2017.010(emphasis
supplied).
Here,YOTRIO’Sdocument requests
far
8 ||exceedthescopeof permissible
discovery
inthat
theyseekinformation
pertaining
toprivileged
matters,
9 ||including
information
protected
fromdisclosure
bytheCalifornia
constitution.
Forthereasonssetforth
10 || below,
theCourtshoulddeny themotionandaward sanctions
toNICOLE.
11 1. The Scope of Discovery
isLimited totheParties’
Claims
12 YOTRIO filed
its
Complaintagainst
husband.andwife,JAMESJENKINSand NICOLEJENKINS on or
13 | about
November 25,2008. The Complaint
generally
alieges
thatJAMESbreachedemploymentduties
owed
14 | toYOrRIO andthatthe JENKINS
usedYOTRIO’S fundsfornon-business
purposes.
By all
accounts,
NICOLE
15 | JENKINS’
roleinthis
litigation
wasminimal.On January
26,2009,theJENKINS answered
and filed
a cross-
16 |} complaint
against
YOTRIO and its
individual
principals,
thethreeXLEbrothers.TheCross-Complaint
17 | alleges,
inter alia, that
YOTRIO andits
principals
failed
to payJAMESthemoney theyagreedtopaywhen they
18 || bought
JAMES’shareof the
company.
19 Accordingly,
discovery
is limited
to those
claimspresented
intheComplaintand Cross-Complaint,
20 } totheextent
not privileged
orotherwise
protectedfromdisclosure.
21 2. Scope ofDocument Requests
22 By contrast,
YOTRIO’Sdocument requests
substantially
exceedthescopeofdiscovery
by secking
23 |}information
related
tothe JENKINS’
personal
bankaccounts,
phone records,
taxreturns,
coatracts
with
a Fast Julian St., San Jose, California 95112
& ASSOCIATES
24 | Bond Manufacturing
Co.,attorneys’
fees,
andtravel
and movingexpenses.
As discussed
inmore detail
25° || below,
many ofYOTRIO’s documentdemands impermissibly
inquire
into
subjects
protected
by privilege,
one: (408) 297-9986
26 }tprivacy
protection,
and other
prohibitions
on discovery.
ItshouldbenotedthattheJENKINS havenot
KEEGAN
27 | altogether
refusedtoproducedocuments,andindeed,
haveproduced documentsinresponsetodemands
Renae _ Rainrins ra Ceaannr
Brmrirep BoeMnners TA RENTIZET BAR PRANCTION
NF NOCUMENTS 3
er'd 8/66-/62-80r7 SHALVIOOSSV8 NVYOIFWY dov:zo60 gzdes
nos.2,13and 14.Keegan Decl.,
ff]
4 -6,
9; Exhibits
“A - B”. As totheremaining
requests,
the JENKINS
wishtopreservetheir
objections.
Keegan Decl.,
|] 9.
3. PrivacyProtection
When privacytights
areasserted,
theparty
seekingdiscovery
mustshow aparticularized
needforthe
confidential
information
sought.The broad“relevancy
tothesubject
matter”standard
isztenough. The
Courtmustbe convincedthat
theinformation
isdirectly
relevant
toa cause
of action
ordefense...
£2,that
it is
ersenféad to
determining
thetruthofthematters
indispute.Harris
v.SuperiorCourt (Smets)
(1992)3
Cal.App.4th
661,665 (emphasis
supplied).
Moreover,discovery
will
not beorderedif the
information
soughtisavailable
fromothersourcesorthroughless
intrusive
means. Allenv.Superior
CourtSierra)
10 (1984)151CalApp.3d447,449. TheJENKINS objected
todocument demands nos.6, 7,
16—19,21,and
i 28on thegroundthatthesedemandsseckinformation
protected
from disclosure
by theresponding
parties’
12 tight
of privacy
andconfidentiality
undertheCalifornia
andU.S.constitutions.
Demands nos.6 and16—19
13 all
requestdocumentspertaining
to financial
matters
clearly
within
theconstitutional
privacy
protection.
14 Specifically,
demand no.6 requests
“AllDOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR bankaccount
statements
fromJanuary1, 2006
tothepresent.”A cight
of privacy
exists
astoa party's
confidential
16 financial
affairs,
evenwhen theinformation
soughtisadmittedly
relevant
tothelitigation.
Cobb v.Superior
17 Court(1979)99 Cal.
App.3d543,550.Moreover,theconstitutional
privacyprotection
extendsto
18 “confidential
customerinformation
whatever
form it takes,
whetherthatformbe taxreturns,
checks,
statements,
or other
accountinformation.”
Fortunato
v.SuperiorCourt(Ingrassia)
(2003)114Cal.App.4th
475,480(emphasisinoriginal).
Accordingly,
thedocumentssoughtarewithin
the“zone” of privacy
as
described
inFortunato.Likewise,
demand no.16seeksdocumentsrelating
tothe JENKINS’
federal
andstate
taxreturns,
which arealso
clearly
within
thezone of privacy
described
by Fortunato.
Demand no. 7seeksdocumentspertaining
to theJENKINS’phonerecords.
JENKINS’phone records
au East Julian St., San Jose, California 95112
clearly
contain
significant
private
information
evenif not
related
topersonal
finances.California
courts
& ASSOCIATES
25 haverepeatedly
recognized
thattherecords
of phonecalls
made toandfroma certain
number areprotected
Phone: (408) 297-9986
26 by theCalifornia
constitution,
Art.I,§ 13.See,
eg.Peoplev.Blair
(1979)
25 Cal.3d640,
654 ~655;Peoplev.
Larkin(1987)
194 Cal. App.3d
650,654.
KEEGAN
27
Attica © Terie
Oonnerrias Ta voroia'S
Maronta Cover
Proture Prepawers
TA Bnetrap Donnncrinn
ni NOCMENTS 4
rid 9/66-/ 62-807 SALVIOOSSV 8 NVSDSA™M dor:zo60 gzdes
Demands nos.17— 19requestall documents
pertaining
totravel
expenses,
attorneys’
feesand
moving expenses.
As consumcrfinancial
information,
eachof these
categories
ofdocuments islikewise
entitled
to privacy
protection.
See,ag,Alchv.Superior Court
(TimeWarner Entertainment
Co.)(2008)
165
Cal.App.4th
1412,1423.
Demand no. 21requests
all documents
pertaining
totheJENKINS’right
towork intheUnitedStates.
The JENKINScontendtheir
immigrationstatus,
asidefromits
completelackof relevance
tothesubject
matterandthusoutside
thescopeof permissible
discovery,
is a highly
personalandconfidential
matter
whichtheyshouldnotbe compelledtodisclose.
Finally,
Demand no.28requests
all documents
pertaining
to theJENKINS’
ownershipof Bond
10 Manufacturing
Company. Thisdemand alsoclearly
implicates
their
financial
investments,
whichiswithin
11 theconstitutional
privacyprotection.
12 4. Overbroad,Burdensome and OppressiveRequests
13 ‘The JENKINS’
further
objected
todemands nos.2, 6
— 7,10,
16 — 19,
21 —28 onthegroundsthatthe
14 demands areoverbroad,
burdensome,andoppressive.
Many of these
demands are
overbroadbecausethey
15 areunlimited
astoscopeand astotime,
such asDemand no.2, which
requests
“AllDOCUMENTS
16 RELATING TO BOND [Manufacturing
Company].”Othersareoverbroadbecause
theyareextremely
i7 overinclusive,
suchasDemand no.6,requesting
all documents
relating
tobankaccountstatements
forthe
18 last
threeyears,
andno.7,requesting
all
phone records
forthesame period.
Likewise,
Demands nos.16—
19 19(taxreturns,
travel
and movingexpenses,
and attomeys’
feesforthelast
three
vears),
21(documents
20 pertaining
tothe JENKINS’
legal
right
towork intheUnitedStates),
22~ 27(all documents
pertaining
to
21 communicationswithWal-Mart,
Menards,GroceryOutlet,
Inc.,
Garden Ridge,Stonehaven
Group of
22 Companies,andAMA, Ine.for
thepastthreeyears),
and 28(all
documentspertaining
tothe JENKINS’
alleged
ownershipof BondManufacturing
Company withoutLimitation
asto time)
acesubstantially
# East Julian St. San Jose, California 95112
24 overbroadandif existing,
wouldbe comprisedof documents
notrelevant
tothisaction.
& ASSOCIATES
25 Moreover,becauseofthevolumeof documentsthat
potentially
couldfall within
these
broad
hone: (408) 297-9986
26 categories,
collecting,
reviewingandproducingthese
recordswouldbe extremely
burdensomeand
KEEGAN
27 oppressive,
especially
inightoftheminimalvalue
of thedocumentstotheinstant
litigation.
Riant o Eran?
Onnnernan
Ta van @ Marinastn Cnniper
Provure
Recenners
Th Rrnteer rar PRAneTinn
Ag DNACTIMENTS 5
gid 8/66-/672-807 SHALVIDOSSV8 NYSAAY di ¢:z0
6097 des
1 5. Relevance
2 The JENKINSobjectedtoDemands nos.2,6 —7, 10,
13,
14,16 -19,and 21— 28on thegroundthat
3 |{ the
documentsrequested
arenotwithinthescopeof permissible
discovery
because
theycallfor
information
4 || not
relevant
tothesubject
matterof this
actionandareneither
themselves
admissible
inevidencenordo
5 || they
appear
to bereasonably
calculated
to lead
tothediscoveryofadmissible
evidence.
Emblematicof
6 || YOTRIO’S
searchforirrelevant
information
is its request
fordocumentspertaining
tothe JENKINS’
tight
to
7 | workin theUnited
States(Demand no.21).The JENKINS’immigration
status
andrighttoworkareinno
8 || way
implicated
byany of the
claims
or cross-claims,
and areinnoway enforceable
byYOTRIO ina private
9 ||civil
action.
Suchinformation
isrequested
solely
forthepurposeof harassment,
andshouldnotbe
10 || endorsed
by theCourt.
li Likewise,
YOTRIC’Sunlimited
requests
(eg,all documents
relating
toBond Manufacturing,
without
12} limitation;
phonerecords;
all documents
relating
to contracts
between BondManufacturingandthe
13 || JENKINS,
ef)significantly
exceedthescopeof permissible
discovery
inthat
theycall
fordocuments far
14 || beyond
thescopeof thesubject
matter
of this
litigation
or thedetermination
of anymotionherein.C.C.P.§
15 | 2617.010.
16 Inaddition,
YOTRIO’sdemand fordocumentspertaining
tothe JENKINS’
current
employment
17 j| Demand no.13)is
not relevant
tothesubject
matter
of thelitigation
or the
determination
of anymotion
18 || herein.
YOTRIO hascomplainedthattheJENKINS’
breachedvariousduties
arising
fromtheir
employment
19 ff arrangement
withYOTRIO. Thatrelationship
no longer
exists,
andasa tesult,
theidentity
of,aswellas
20 I documentspertaining
to the JENKINS’
current
employerarenotrelevant
toYOTRIO’saction,
thecross-
21°jf action,
or anymotion.
22 6. NonspecificDemands
z 23 The JENKINSobjected
to Demands nos.2and 10on thegroundthatthedemandsarefartoo
a
Preview
DRU ANNE KEEGAN, ESQ. Gate Bar No. 157076) FILED AL BY FAX KEEGAN & ASSOCIATES AMEDA COUNTY Attomeys at Law September 2009 28, San San Jose. Californie Jose, California 95112 : rueByR aES court Lvs) Telephone:> (408)297-9986 ¥ Rosanne Case, Deputy Facsimile: (408)297-9978 CASE NUMBER: RG08422174 AttorneyforDefendants/Cross-Complainants 7) JAMES CAMERON andNICOLE JENKINS Dn “I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Oo IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA {UnlimitedJurisdiction] YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., CASE NO: RG08422174 ee Plaintiff, NICOLE JENKINS’ OPPOSITION TO YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C.’s ee v. MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO FIRST SET OF REQUESTS ee JAMES CAMERON JENKINS, NICOLE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION AND FOR ee JENKINS, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, MONETARY SANCTIONS ae ee JAMES CAMERON JENKINS andNICOLE JENKINS, Date: October13,2009 Time: 3:15p.m. ee : Dept: 24 Cross-Complainants, Won. Patrick Zika ee v. eeet YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., et JIANGPING XIE, JIANGYONG XIE, ee JIANGQIANG XIE,and ROES 1-50, inclusive, Cross-Defendants. Ne 31 East Julian St, San Jose, California 95112 & ASSOCIATES Defendant/Cross-Complaimant NICOLE JENKINSopposesPlaintiff/Cross-Defendant YOTRIO INTERNATIONAL, LLC’s (hereinafter, “YOTRIO”)Motionto CompelFurtherResponsestoFirst Setof Phone: (408} 297-9986 RequestsforProduction of Documentsand for Monetary Sanctions asfollows: bt SOD itt KEEGAN nN NICOLE JENKINS’ OPPOSITION TO YOTRIO’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1 Lyd 8/66-/62-80r7 SHALVIDOSSV8 NYSFIdY dee:zo60 gzdes 1 I.INTRODUCTION 2 The instant motionpertains to17document requests servedbymailonNICOLE JENKINS 3 ||Ghereinafter, “NICOLE”)on oraboutApril3, 2009. YOTRIO requested thesame documentsfrom NICOLE’S 4 | husband, JAMES CAMERON JENKINS(hereinafter, collectively “the JENKINS”),andfiled an identical motion 5 jj against him aswell.JAMES CAMERON JENKINS submitshis own opposition tothepresent motion, 6 || mirroring this briefinall relevant aspects. 7 As set forthbelow,YOTRIO’Sdocument requests were andremainoverbroadandcallfordocuments 8 ||protected framdisclosure byrecognized privilege. Accordingly, theyrespectfully request thattheCourt 9 || deny YOTRIO’smotions andawardthem monetarysanctions. 10 TI.BACKGROUND 11 YOTRIO’Smotion concerns17documentrequests generally secking all documents relating to:(2) 12 | Bond Manufacturing Company, a non-party tothisaction; (6) The JENKINS’personal bank account 13 || statements; (7)TheJENKINS’personal telephonerecords; (10) The JENKINS’cross-claims; (13) The 14 || JENKINS’ presentemployment;(14) contracts betweenThe JENKINS’andBond Manufacturing Company; 15 || (6) The JENKINS’federal andstate taxreturns; (17) The JENKINS’travel expenses; (18) The JENKINS’ 16 ||attorney’s fees; (19)The JENKINS’ moving expenses; (21) The JENKINS legal right towork intheUnited 17 | States; (22 27)communicationsbetweenTheJENKINS’and YOTRIC’Scustomers; and (28) The JENKINS’ 18 || ownership of BondManufacturing Company. 19 ‘The JENKINS’ servedtheir responses tothedocument requests on May6, 2009.The FENKINS’ 20 }| interposed objections tosome of the requests, butagreedtoproduceallrelevant, non-privileged documents 21 |)intheir possession, custody or control. Afterinitially meetingandconferring, andsubsequently producing 22 | all relevant, non-privileged documents, YOTRIO filedthe presentmotions, withouranyfurther attemptsto 23 |l meet and confer.Thereafter, YOTRIO requestedthat JAMES drophisdiscovery motionagainst YOTRIO 41 East Julian St., San Jose, California y5i12 24 || which was set tobe heardon October6, 2009, in return fora dismissal of the present motions. Counselfor ASSOCIATES 25 || the JENKINS refusedtodismiss JAMES’discovery motion,and accordingly, thepresent motionswerekept Bhone: (408) 297-9986 26 | on calendar. See, Declaration of DruAnne KeeganinOppositiontoYotrioInternational, L-L.C.’s Motion KEEGAN & 27 | toCompel Further ResponsestoFirstSet of Requests forProductionofDocuments andDocument RinneWranre renee rae et wn Seems. Boreron Deena cems ea Brarmer nan Doninietian ac Racmsasre 2 Zid 9/66-/ 62-807 SALVIOOSSV 8 NVSDSA™M dor:zo60 gzdes 1} ProductionandforMonetarySanctions (hereinafter, “Keegan Decl.”), {] 7, Exhibit“C.”” 2 TH. ARGUMENT 3 A. YOTRIO’S DEMANDS CLEARLY EXCEED THE PERMISSIBLE SCOPE OFDISCOVERY 4 The scopeof discovery is limited tomatters thatarenotprivileged and that are“relevant tothe 5 || subject matter involvedinthependingaction or tothedetermination of anymotionmade inthataction, if 6 ||thematter is itself admissible inevidenceorappearsreasonably calculated toleadtothediscovery of 7 || admissible evidence.” C.C.P.§2017.010(emphasis supplied). Here,YOTRIO’Sdocument requests far 8 ||exceedthescopeof permissible discovery inthat theyseekinformation pertaining toprivileged matters, 9 ||including information protected fromdisclosure bytheCalifornia constitution. Forthereasonssetforth 10 || below, theCourtshoulddeny themotionandaward sanctions toNICOLE. 11 1. The Scope of Discovery isLimited totheParties’ Claims 12 YOTRIO filed its Complaintagainst husband.andwife,JAMESJENKINSand NICOLEJENKINS on or 13 | about November 25,2008. The Complaint generally alieges thatJAMESbreachedemploymentduties owed 14 | toYOrRIO andthatthe JENKINS usedYOTRIO’S fundsfornon-business purposes. By all accounts, NICOLE 15 | JENKINS’ roleinthis litigation wasminimal.On January 26,2009,theJENKINS answered and filed a cross- 16 |} complaint against YOTRIO and its individual principals, thethreeXLEbrothers.TheCross-Complaint 17 | alleges, inter alia, that YOTRIO andits principals failed to payJAMESthemoney theyagreedtopaywhen they 18 || bought JAMES’shareof the company. 19 Accordingly, discovery is limited to those claimspresented intheComplaintand Cross-Complaint, 20 } totheextent not privileged orotherwise protectedfromdisclosure. 21 2. Scope ofDocument Requests 22 By contrast, YOTRIO’Sdocument requests substantially exceedthescopeofdiscovery by secking 23 |}information related tothe JENKINS’ personal bankaccounts, phone records, taxreturns, coatracts with a Fast Julian St., San Jose, California 95112 & ASSOCIATES 24 | Bond Manufacturing Co.,attorneys’ fees, andtravel and movingexpenses. As discussed inmore detail 25° || below, many ofYOTRIO’s documentdemands impermissibly inquire into subjects protected by privilege, one: (408) 297-9986 26 }tprivacy protection, and other prohibitions on discovery. ItshouldbenotedthattheJENKINS havenot KEEGAN 27 | altogether refusedtoproducedocuments,andindeed, haveproduced documentsinresponsetodemands Renae _ Rainrins ra Ceaannr Brmrirep BoeMnners TA RENTIZET BAR PRANCTION NF NOCUMENTS 3 er'd 8/66-/62-80r7 SHALVIOOSSV8 NVYOIFWY dov:zo60 gzdes nos.2,13and 14.Keegan Decl., ff] 4 -6, 9; Exhibits “A - B”. As totheremaining requests, the JENKINS wishtopreservetheir objections. Keegan Decl., |] 9. 3. PrivacyProtection When privacytights areasserted, theparty seekingdiscovery mustshow aparticularized needforthe confidential information sought.The broad“relevancy tothesubject matter”standard isztenough. The Courtmustbe convincedthat theinformation isdirectly relevant toa cause of action ordefense... £2,that it is ersenféad to determining thetruthofthematters indispute.Harris v.SuperiorCourt (Smets) (1992)3 Cal.App.4th 661,665 (emphasis supplied). Moreover,discovery will not beorderedif the information soughtisavailable fromothersourcesorthroughless intrusive means. Allenv.Superior CourtSierra) 10 (1984)151CalApp.3d447,449. TheJENKINS objected todocument demands nos.6, 7, 16—19,21,and i 28on thegroundthatthesedemandsseckinformation protected from disclosure by theresponding parties’ 12 tight of privacy andconfidentiality undertheCalifornia andU.S.constitutions. Demands nos.6 and16—19 13 all requestdocumentspertaining to financial matters clearly within theconstitutional privacy protection. 14 Specifically, demand no.6 requests “AllDOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR bankaccount statements fromJanuary1, 2006 tothepresent.”A cight of privacy exists astoa party's confidential 16 financial affairs, evenwhen theinformation soughtisadmittedly relevant tothelitigation. Cobb v.Superior 17 Court(1979)99 Cal. App.3d543,550.Moreover,theconstitutional privacyprotection extendsto 18 “confidential customerinformation whatever form it takes, whetherthatformbe taxreturns, checks, statements, or other accountinformation.” Fortunato v.SuperiorCourt(Ingrassia) (2003)114Cal.App.4th 475,480(emphasisinoriginal). Accordingly, thedocumentssoughtarewithin the“zone” of privacy as described inFortunato.Likewise, demand no.16seeksdocumentsrelating tothe JENKINS’ federal andstate taxreturns, which arealso clearly within thezone of privacy described by Fortunato. Demand no. 7seeksdocumentspertaining to theJENKINS’phonerecords. JENKINS’phone records au East Julian St., San Jose, California 95112 clearly contain significant private information evenif not related topersonal finances.California courts & ASSOCIATES 25 haverepeatedly recognized thattherecords of phonecalls made toandfroma certain number areprotected Phone: (408) 297-9986 26 by theCalifornia constitution, Art.I,§ 13.See, eg.Peoplev.Blair (1979) 25 Cal.3d640, 654 ~655;Peoplev. Larkin(1987) 194 Cal. App.3d 650,654. KEEGAN 27 Attica © Terie Oonnerrias Ta voroia'S Maronta Cover Proture Prepawers TA Bnetrap Donnncrinn ni NOCMENTS 4 rid 9/66-/ 62-807 SALVIOOSSV 8 NVSDSA™M dor:zo60 gzdes Demands nos.17— 19requestall documents pertaining totravel expenses, attorneys’ feesand moving expenses. As consumcrfinancial information, eachof these categories ofdocuments islikewise entitled to privacy protection. See,ag,Alchv.Superior Court (TimeWarner Entertainment Co.)(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1412,1423. Demand no. 21requests all documents pertaining totheJENKINS’right towork intheUnitedStates. The JENKINScontendtheir immigrationstatus, asidefromits completelackof relevance tothesubject matterandthusoutside thescopeof permissible discovery, is a highly personalandconfidential matter whichtheyshouldnotbe compelledtodisclose. Finally, Demand no.28requests all documents pertaining to theJENKINS’ ownershipof Bond 10 Manufacturing Company. Thisdemand alsoclearly implicates their financial investments, whichiswithin 11 theconstitutional privacyprotection. 12 4. Overbroad,Burdensome and OppressiveRequests 13 ‘The JENKINS’ further objected todemands nos.2, 6 — 7,10, 16 — 19, 21 —28 onthegroundsthatthe 14 demands areoverbroad, burdensome,andoppressive. Many of these demands are overbroadbecausethey 15 areunlimited astoscopeand astotime, such asDemand no.2, which requests “AllDOCUMENTS 16 RELATING TO BOND [Manufacturing Company].”Othersareoverbroadbecause theyareextremely i7 overinclusive, suchasDemand no.6,requesting all documents relating tobankaccountstatements forthe 18 last threeyears, andno.7,requesting all phone records forthesame period. Likewise, Demands nos.16— 19 19(taxreturns, travel and movingexpenses, and attomeys’ feesforthelast three vears), 21(documents 20 pertaining tothe JENKINS’ legal right towork intheUnitedStates), 22~ 27(all documents pertaining to 21 communicationswithWal-Mart, Menards,GroceryOutlet, Inc., Garden Ridge,Stonehaven Group of 22 Companies,andAMA, Ine.for thepastthreeyears), and 28(all documentspertaining tothe JENKINS’ alleged ownershipof BondManufacturing Company withoutLimitation asto time) acesubstantially # East Julian St. San Jose, California 95112 24 overbroadandif existing, wouldbe comprisedof documents notrelevant tothisaction. & ASSOCIATES 25 Moreover,becauseofthevolumeof documentsthat potentially couldfall within these broad hone: (408) 297-9986 26 categories, collecting, reviewingandproducingthese recordswouldbe extremely burdensomeand KEEGAN 27 oppressive, especially inightoftheminimalvalue of thedocumentstotheinstant litigation. Riant o Eran? Onnnernan Ta van @ Marinastn Cnniper Provure Recenners Th Rrnteer rar PRAneTinn Ag DNACTIMENTS 5 gid 8/66-/672-807 SHALVIDOSSV8 NYSAAY di ¢:z0 6097 des 1 5. Relevance 2 The JENKINSobjectedtoDemands nos.2,6 —7, 10, 13, 14,16 -19,and 21— 28on thegroundthat 3 |{ the documentsrequested arenotwithinthescopeof permissible discovery because theycallfor information 4 || not relevant tothesubject matterof this actionandareneither themselves admissible inevidencenordo 5 || they appear to bereasonably calculated to lead tothediscoveryofadmissible evidence. Emblematicof 6 || YOTRIO’S searchforirrelevant information is its request fordocumentspertaining tothe JENKINS’ tight to 7 | workin theUnited States(Demand no.21).The JENKINS’immigration status andrighttoworkareinno 8 || way implicated byany of the claims or cross-claims, and areinnoway enforceable byYOTRIO ina private 9 ||civil action. Suchinformation isrequested solely forthepurposeof harassment, andshouldnotbe 10 || endorsed by theCourt. li Likewise, YOTRIC’Sunlimited requests (eg,all documents relating toBond Manufacturing, without 12} limitation; phonerecords; all documents relating to contracts between BondManufacturingandthe 13 || JENKINS, ef)significantly exceedthescopeof permissible discovery inthat theycall fordocuments far 14 || beyond thescopeof thesubject matter of this litigation or thedetermination of anymotionherein.C.C.P.§ 15 | 2617.010. 16 Inaddition, YOTRIO’sdemand fordocumentspertaining tothe JENKINS’ current employment 17 j| Demand no.13)is not relevant tothesubject matter of thelitigation or the determination of anymotion 18 || herein. YOTRIO hascomplainedthattheJENKINS’ breachedvariousduties arising fromtheir employment 19 ff arrangement withYOTRIO. Thatrelationship no longer exists, andasa tesult, theidentity of,aswellas 20 I documentspertaining to the JENKINS’ current employerarenotrelevant toYOTRIO’saction, thecross- 21°jf action, or anymotion. 22 6. NonspecificDemands z 23 The JENKINSobjected to Demands nos.2and 10on thegroundthatthedemandsarefartoo a