robert christopher ramirez 2150 peony street · robert christopher ramirez 2150 peony street...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ 2150 Peony Street Corona, CA 92882 (909) 319-0461 Defendant in Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

WEST COAST HOTEL LIQUIDATION, INC., a California Corporation,

Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ; JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No: 30-2015-00815976-CU-BT-CJC Assigned to: The Hon. James L. Crandall Dept. C33 Reservation Number: 72367741 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT; DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ; DECLARATION OF SCOTT SHELDON; SEPARATE STATEMENT [Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.] Date: June 23, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Department: C33 Complaint Filed: October 20, 2015 Trial Date: November 7, 2016

TO EACH PARTY AND TO COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY AND TO GOOGLE,

INC.; YAHOO! INC., AT&T AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY;

SPRINT CORPORATION; JP MORGAN CHASE BANK; AND COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR

EACH OF THEM:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -


YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT on June 23, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., in Department C33 of

this Court located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, Defendant ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMRIEZ will move the Court for an order quashing or modifying the deposition

subpoena for production of business records served on GOOGLE, INC. to produce to Plaintiff: “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC, including but not limited to the EMAIL ACCOUNT: unitedhotelliquidators.com, covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date.”




subpoena for production of business records served on AT&T AMERICAN & TELEGRAPH

COMPANY to produce to Plaintiff: “all TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.”




subpoena for production of business records served on SPRINT CORPORATION to produce to

Plaintiff:

“all TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.”




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENA

I. Introduction

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1, Defendant ROBERT RAMIREZ moves to

quash the deposition subpoenas served on the Custodian of Records of Yhoo!, Inc.; Google, Inc.; Sprint

Corporation; JP Morgan Chase Bank; and AT&T American Telephone & Telegraph Company on March

31, 2016.

This motion to quash is made on the grounds that the information sought unreasonably seeks to

invade the right of privacy provided by Article I, Section 1 of the California State Constitution, seeks

disclosure of trade secret or other confidential proprietary financial information to a competitor (Code

Civ. Proc. § 2031.060(b)(5), and seeks information protected by Spousal Privilege and/or Attorney-

Client Privilege, and these privileges have been waived.

The failure of this court to provide the requested relief will cause the irreparable harm in that it

will allow the disclosure of confidential correspondence between ROBERT RAMIREZ and his

attorney(s), and confidential correspondence between ROBERT RAMIREZ and his wife. Neither Mr.

RAMIREZ, or his wife, have waived Attorney-Client Privilege or Spousal Privilege in connection with

these communications, and do not do so here.

Failure to provide the requested relief will also cause irreparable harm in that it will allow the

disclosure of Trade Secrets and other confidential commercial information of Defendants to a current

competitor, the Plaintiff.

II. Factual Background

Plaintiff in this action is a California Corporation that purchases and resells used hotel

furnishings. Plaintiff’s complaint arises from Mr. RAMIREZ’s decision to go into business for himself,

forming and operating a competing business, UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC. (hereinafter

“UNITED HOTEL”), in or around September 2015.

Prior to forming UNITED HOTEL, ROBERT RAMIREZ performed sales services for Plaintiff

as a result of an arrangement between Plaintiff and JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -


(hereinafter “JAAS”). No direct employment relationship existed between Plaintiff and Mr. RAMIREZ,

and no confidentiality agreement ever existed between Plaintiff and JAAS.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 20, 2015, alleging various causes of action, including

misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. On or about March 31, 2016, Plaintiff

propounded five (5) Deposition Subpoenas for Production of Business Records. These subpoenas were

sent to the following:

1. GOOGLE, INC. – requesting “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT: [email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date.”

2. YAHOO! INC. – requesting “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT: [email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date.

3. AT&T AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY – requesting “all

TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.”

4. SPRINT CORPORATION – requesting “all TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS

AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.”

5. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK – requesting “All bank account records of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ; JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; AND UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATIONS, INC., including but not limited to account # []7120, covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date.”

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges Plaintiff suffered substantial harm due to Mr. RAMIREZ’s alleged

taking and using of Plaintiff’s allegedly confidential customer information. Now, Plaintiff’s subpoenas

attempt to cause this same harm to Defendants by seeking disclosure of Defendant’s own confidential

customer information, sales information, and other trade secrets.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s subpoenas seek disclosure of clearly privileged communications

between Mr. RAMIREZ and his attorney(s) in this matter, and communications between Mr. RAMIREZ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -


and his wife, and seek to unreasonably invade Mr. RAMIREZ’s privacy by seeking the public disclosure

of Mr. RAMIREZ’s personal financial information and private communications, which have no

connection to this matter whatsoever.

III. Legal Standard – Motion to Quash

The court may make an order quashing a subpoena for the production of documents entirely,

modifying it, or directing compliance with it upon those terms and conditions as the court shall declare,

including issuing a protective order. Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1. An order quashing or limiting a

subpoena may be issued to protect a person from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including

unreasonable violations of the right of privacy of the person. Id.

“Although the scope of civil discovery is broad, it is not limitless.” Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216. “The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines

that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the

information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court may make this

determination pursuant to a motion for protective order by a party or other affected person.” Code Civ.

Proc., § 2017.020.

IV. Each Of The Subpoenas Should Be Quashed Because They Are Clearly Overbroad.

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable discovery necessary to attempt

to prove its case, but the scope of civil discovery is not limitless. Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior

Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216. The scope of Plaintiff’s Subpoena is clearly not limited to admissible

evidence or evidence reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010.

“The court shall limit the scope of discovery if it determines that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of

that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020.

The GOOGLE subpoeana requests “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC., including but not limited to

EMAIL ACCOUNT: [email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date.”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -


This is so broad to include emails with Counsel; emails with Mr. RAMIREZ’s wife; and emails with

customers, vendors, and employees who have never even heard of Plainitff. Clearly, this information

would not be admissible nor could it be reasonably considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ.

Proc. § 2017.010. As such, Mr. RAMIREZ hereby requests that this court quash the GOOGLE

Subpoena in its entirety.

The YAHOO! Subpoena requests “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC., including but not limited

to EMAIL ACCOUNT: [email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to the

present date.” As with the GOOGLE subpoena, the YAHOO subpoena is phrased so broadly as to

include private and privileged communications that would not be admissible nor could it be reasonably

considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. As such, Mr. RAMIREZ hereby

requests that this court quash the YAHOO! subpoena in its entirety.

The AT&T and SPRINT subpoenas request “all TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND

ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date.

Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.” This subpoena is phrased so broadly that it

includes all telephone communications between Mr. RAMIREZ and any third party, including calls and

text messages to his Attorney(s) and his Wife. Additionally, this subpoena seeks records of

communications between Mr. RAMIREZ and his children, family members, and friends. These

communications have no bearing on this matter, and would not be admissible nor could it be reasonably


requests that this court quash the AT&T Subpoena in its entirety.

The JP MORGAN CHASE BANK subpoena requests “All bank account records of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ; JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability

Company; AND UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATIONS, INC., including but not limited to account #

[]7120, covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date.” This subpoena is phrased so broadly that it

includes all personal banking records of Mr. RAMRIEZ, whether or not they relate to his business

activities. This subpoena is also phrased so broadly that it includes financial information related to

business activities between Defendants and third-parties that have never had any relationship with

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -


Plaintiff. . This information has bearing on this matter, and would not be admissible nor could it be

reasonably considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. As such, Mr.

RAMIREZ hereby requests that this court quash the JP MORGAN CHASE BANK Subpoena in its

entirety.

V. Each Of The Subpoenas Should Be Quashed Because They Improperly Seek

Disclosure of Confidential Commercial Information To A Direct Competitor.

“In an action under [the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.)], a court shall

preserve the secrecy of an alleged trade secret by reasonable means, which may include granting

protective orders in connection with discovery proceedings, holding in-camera hearings, sealing the

records of the action, and ordering any person involved in the litigation not to disclose an alleged trade

secret without prior court approval.” Civ. Code, § 3426.5.

Even in other actions, the court should prevent or limit disclosure of information containing trade

secret or confidential commercial information. Code Civ. Proc. 2031.060(b)(5); See also. GT, Inc. v.

Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 748 [protective order properly granted to prevent competitors

from viewing each other’s proprietary financial information in unfair competition action].)

Plaintiff’s subpoenas to GOOGLE and YAHOO! seek all emails sent or received from

[email protected] and [email protected]. These email address are

used by Defendants to conduct business in direct competition with Plaintiff. The contents of the emails

sought under this subpoena will include information regarding Defendants’ customers, vendors,

suppliers, pricing, negotiations, and other trade secret or confidential commercial information of

Defendants. This information is protected, and Mr. RAMRIEZ hereby requests that this court take

reasonable action prevent or limit its disclosure. Civ. Code § 3426.5, supra.

Plaintiff’s subpoenas to JP MORGAN CHASE seek all of Defendants bank records, including

cancelled checks. This information would disclose the volume and quantity of business done by

Defendants, with whom business was done, the frequency of repeat business with one or more customer,

pricing information, and other confidential information of Defendants. This information is protected,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -


and Mr. RAMRIEZ hereby requests that this court take reasonable action prevent or limit its disclosure.

Civ. Code § 3426.5, supra.

Plaintiff’s subpoenas to AT&T and SPRINT similarly contain confidential commercial

information including the identities of Defendants customers, suppliers, and vendors, and the frequency

with which Mr. RAMIREZ communicates with each of them. The disclosure of this information to

Plaintiff, a competitor, is protected, and Mr. RAMRIEZ hereby requests that this court take reasonable

action prevent or limit its disclosure. Civ. Code § 3426.5, supra.

Unlike Plaintiff, Defendants have not failed to maintain the secrecy of this information, and has

not knowingly disclosed this information a third-party or consented to the same. As such, Defendants

have not waived the protections of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act and hereby request that this court

quash Plaintiff’s subpoena, or, in the alternative grant a protective order limiting the disclosure of this

information to Plaintiff’s Counsel, and prohibiting Plaintiff’s Counsel from disclosing this information

to Plaintiff.

VI. The Subpoenas to GOOGLE, YAHOO!, And JP MORGAN CHASE BANK Should

Be Quashed Because They Improperly Seek Disclosure of Communications

Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege.

Mr. RAMIREZ uses the email account(s) communicate with his attorney(s). All

communications between a “Lawyer” and “Client” are privileged and not protected from disclosure.

Evid. Code § 950 et. seq.. This privilege has not been waived.

As defined by Section 951 of the Evidence Code, “client” includes any person who consults a

lawyer for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from the lawyer in a

professional capacity. Evid. Code § 951. “An attorney-client relationship exists for purposes of the

privilege whenever a person consults an attorney for the purpose of obtaining the attorney's legal service

or advice. No formal agreement or compensation is necessary to create an attorney-client relationship

for purposes of the privilege. Palmer v. Superior Court (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1226 (citations

omitted).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -


Multiple emails have been sent and received by and between Mr. RAMIREZ and counsel

regarding possible representation and current representation of one or more Defendant in this matter.

These emails are clearly privileged and the court should prevent their disclosure to Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s

Counsel.

The JP MORGAN CHASE BANK subpoena would include information regarding the

amount(s), frequency, and date(s) of payments made by Defendant(s) to counsel. This information is

privileged and confidential and the court should take reasonable steps to prevent its disclosure. (See e.g.

Bus. & Prof. Code § 6149 (“A written fee contract shall be deemed to be a confidential communication

within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6068 and of Section 952 of the Evidence Code.”). Mr.

RAMIREZ hereby requests the court take reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure of this privileged

and confidential information.

VII. The JP MORGAN CHASE BANK SUBPOENA Should Be Quashed Because It

Seeks Information Protected By Defendant’s Right to Privacy Provided By Article I,

Section 1 of the California State Constitution.

Plaintiff’s subpoena to CHASE BANK improperly seeks all of Defendant’s banking records,

including the personal bank records of Mr. RAMIREZ and the records associated with any personal

accounts shared with Mr. RAMIREZ’s wife. The scope of Plaintiff’s subpoena includes information

that is not even remotely relevant to the current action, and as such, should be quashed.

“The right to privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution ‘extends to one's

confidential financial affairs....’ This right embraces confidential financial information in ‘whatever

form it takes, whether that form be tax returns, checks, statements, or other account information.’

Overstock.Com, Inc. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 471, 503 (internal citations

omitted). “We entertain no doubt that [] the right to privacy may be properly described as a compelling

or overriding interest. The right to privacy is an inalienable right guaranteed under the California

Constitution, and has been acknowledged as an overriding interest in certain individualized contexts.

The right to privacy extends to one's personal financial information.” Burkle v. Burkle (2006) 135

Cal.App.4th 1045, 1063 (internal citation omitted).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -


The JP MORGAN CHASE BANK subpoena blatantly seeks to violate the right to privacy of Mr.

RAMIREZ. While Plaintiff may be able to make a reasonable argument for the limited disclosure of

financial information of one or more Defendant as it relates to one or more transaction with a customer

or vendor shared with Plaintiff, this subpoena fails to contain anywhere near the level of specificity

necessary to avoid a blatant and unreasonable invasion of privacy. As such, Mr. Ramirez requests the

court quash the JP MORGAN CHASE BANK subpoena in its entirety.

VIII. Conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant ROBERT RAMRIEZ respectfully asks the Court to quash

the Deposition Subpoena for Business Records and issue a protective order ensuring that GOOGLE

INC. do not produce any emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and

UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT:

[email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date.


the Deposition Subpoena for Business Records and issue a protective order ensuring that YAHOO! INC.

do not produce any emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and JAAS

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT:

[email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date.


the Deposition Subpoena for Business Records and issue a protective order ensuring that AT&T

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY not produce any TELEPHONE BILLS,

TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-

2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.


the Deposition Subpoena for Business Records and issue a protective order ensuring SPRINT

CORPORATION does not produce any TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND


Telephone numbers 909-319-0461; and 951-581-9920.”

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.





Defendants.

Case No: 30-2015-00815976-CU-BT-CJC Assigned to: The Hon. James L. Crandall Dept. C33 Reservation Number: 72367741 DEFENDANT ROBERT RAMIREZ’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS. [Cal. Rules of Court., Rule 3.1345; Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.] Date: June 23, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Department: C33 Complaint Filed: October 20, 2015 Trial Date: November 7, 2016

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES IN DISPUTE:

MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF

BUSINESS RECORD

Defendant ROBERT RAMIREZ provides the following Separate Statement of Issues in Dispute

in as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -


SUBPOENA NO. 1:

Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records (SUBP-010) to “GOOGLE INC.,

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. AGENT: CSC – LAWYERS

INCORPORATING SERVICE, 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR, SUITE 150 N, SACRAMENTO, CA

95833.” requesting “ALL EMAILS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez,

DOB 7-29-1983, UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC. from 1-1-2015 to the present date. EMAIL

ACCOUNT NAME: [email protected].”

Factual and Legal Reasons For Motion to Quash:








The GOOGLE subpoeana requests “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, INC., including but not limited to

EMAIL ACCOUNT: [email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date.”

This is so broad to include emails with Counsel; emails with Mr. RAMIREZ’s wife; and emails with

customers, vendors, and employees who have never even heard of Plainitff. Clearly, this information

would not be admissible nor could it be reasonably considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ.

Proc. § 2017.010. As such, Mr. RAMIREZ hereby requests that this court quash the GOOGLE

Subpoena in its entirety.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -


















to Plaintiff.










omitted).

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -





Counsel.

///

///

SUBPOENA NO. 2:

Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records (SUBP-010) to “Yahoo! Inc. 701 First

Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. AGENT: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 818 WEST SEVENTH

STREET, SUITE 930, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017.” requesting “ALL EMAILS, PHOTOS AND

ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christpher (sic) Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, JAAS BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT LLC. From 1-1-2015 to the present date. EMAIL ACCOUNT NAME:

[email protected]”









The YAHOO! Subpoena requests “all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC., including but not limited

to EMAIL ACCOUNT: [email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to the

present date.” As with the GOOGLE subpoena, the YAHOO subpoena is phrased so broadly as to

include private and privileged communications that would not be admissible nor could it be reasonably


requests that this court quash the YAHOO! subpoena in its entirety.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -























to Plaintiff.







1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -





omitted).




Counsel.

SUBPOENA NO. 3:

Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records (SUBP-010) to “AT & T,

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY, AGENT: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM,

818 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 930, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017.” requesting “ALL

TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez,

DOB 7-29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461 ; and 951-581-

9920.”


The telephone numbers identified in Plaintiff’s Subpoena are owned by an account in the name

of Melissa Acevedo, the wife of Defendant ROBERT RAMIREZ. Plaintiff has failed to provide the

required notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3. As a result, this subpoena is technically

deficient and must be quashed.








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -





























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -



to Plaintiff.

SUBPOENA NO. 4:

Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records (SUBP-010) to “SPRINT

CORPORATION, 6500 SPRINT PARKWAY, OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251. AGENT: CSC –

LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE, 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DRIVE, SUITE 150N,

SACRAMENTO, CA 95833.” requesting “ALL TELEPHONE BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND


Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461 ; and 951-581-9920.”


The telephone numbers identified in Plaintiff’s Subpoena are owned by an account in the name

of Melissa Acevedo, the wife of Defendant ROBERT RAMIREZ. Plaintiff has failed to provide the

required notice under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.3. As a result, this subpoena is technically

deficient and must be quashed.














1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -
























to Plaintiff.

SUBPOENA NO. 5:

Deposition Subpoena For Production of Business Records (SUBP-010) to “JP MORGAN

CHASEBANK, CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 818 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 930, LOS

ANGELES, CA 90017. AGENT FOR SERVICE.” requesting “All bank statements and cancelled

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -


checks for all accounts of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-29-1983, JAAS BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT LLC and UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATORS, from 1-1-2015 to the present date.”

And further stating in the attachment “This request seeks legible copies by hard copy and electronically

stored information, of all bank account records of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ; JAAS

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; AND UNITED HOTEL

LIQUIDATIONS, INC., including but not limited to account # []7120, covering the period 1-1-2015 to

the present date. [¶] 1. All bank Statements [¶] 2. All Cancelled checks, both sides; [¶] 3. All wire

transfers. [¶] This includes all forms of writing, documents, electronic data and electronically stored

information.”








admissible evidence.” Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.020

The JP MORGAN CHASE BANK subpoena requests “All bank account records of ROBERT

CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ; JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability

Company; AND UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATIONS, INC., including but not limited to account #

[]7120, covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date.” This subpoena is phrased so broadly that it

includes all personal banking records of Mr. RAMRIEZ, whether or not they relate to his business

activities. This subpoena is also phrased so broadly that it includes financial information related to

business activities between Defendants and third-parties that have never had any relationship with

Plaintiff. . This information has bearing on this matter, and would not be admissible nor could it be

reasonably considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010. As such, Mr.

RAMIREZ hereby requests that this court quash the JP MORGAN CHASE BANK Subpoena in its

entirety.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -











Plaintiff’s subpoenas to JP MORGAN CHASE seek all of Defendants bank records, including

cancelled checks. This information would disclose the volume and quantity of business done by

Defendants, with whom business was done, the frequency of repeat business with one or more customer,

pricing information, and other confidential information of Defendants. This information is protected,

and Mr. RAMRIEZ hereby requests that this court take reasonable action prevent or limit its disclosure.

Civ. Code § 3426.5, supra.










omitted).

The JP MORGAN CHASE BANK subpoena would include information regarding the

amount(s), frequency, and date(s) of payments made by Defendant(s) to counsel. This information is

privileged and confidential and the court should take reasonable steps to prevent its disclosure. (See e.g.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS





Defendants.

Case No: 30-2015-00815976-CU-BT-CJC Assigned to: The Hon. James L. Crandall Dept. C33 Reservation Number: 72367741 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS [Code Civ. Proc. § 1987.1.] Date: June 23, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Department: C33 Complaint Filed: October 20, 2015 Trial Date: November 7, 2016

I, ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ, declare as follows:

1. I am a personal Defendant in this case, I am the sole owner of Defendant JAAS BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and I am the CEO and sole owner of Defendant UNITED HOTEL

LIQUIDATORS, INC. If I were to be called as a witness, I could completely testify about

what I have written in this declaration.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena I received from

Plaintiff, WEST COAST HOTEL LIQUIDATION, INC., requesting all emails, photos and

attachments of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and UNITED HOTEL

LIQUIDATORS, INC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT:

[email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date from

GOOGLE, INC.

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B” is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena I received from

Plaintiff, WEST COAST HOTEL LIQUIDATION, INC., requesting all emails, photos and

attachments of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and JAAS BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT LLC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT:

[email protected], covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date from

YAHOO! INC.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit “C” is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena I received from

Plaintiff, WEST COAST HOTEL LIQUIDATION, INC., requesting all TELEPHONE

BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-

29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers: 909-319-0461; and 951-

581-9920 from AT&T AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena I received from

Plaintiff, WEST COAST HOTEL LIQUIDATION, INC., requesting all TELEPHONE

BILLS, TEXTS, PHOTOS AND ATTACHMENTS of Robert Christopher Ramirez, DOB 7-

29-1983, from 1-1-2015 to the present date. Telephone numbers 909-319-0461; and 951-

581-9920 from SPRINT CORPORATION.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit “E” is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena I received from

Plaintiff, WEST COAST HOTEL LIQUIDATION, INC., requesting all bank account records

of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ; JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a

California Limited Liability Company; AND UNITED HOTEL LIQUIDATIONS, INC.,

EXHIBIT “A”

EXHIBIT “B”

EXHIBIT “C”

EXHIBIT “D”

EXHIBIT “E”

FOR COURT USE ONLYATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name and Address)

ATTORNEY FOR

TELEPHONE NUMBER

Ref. No. or File No.

SHORT TITLE OF CASE:

INVOICE NO. DATE: TIME: DEP./DIV. CASE NUMBER:

10788 Civic Center Drive

Law Office of Scott J. Sheldon

Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730

(909) 660-3062

Defendant

700 Civic Center Drive West

Santa Ana, CA 92701

30-2015-00815976-CU-BT-CJC

United Hotel

West Coast Hotel Liquidation, Inc. vs. Ramirez

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL

1200956-02

1. I am at least 18 years old.

a. My residence or business address is 10788 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

b. My electronic service address is [email protected]

2. I electronically served the following documents:

Proof of Electronic Service

Motion to Quash Subpoena

Separate Statement

Declaration in Support

Declaration in Support

3. I electronically served the documents listed in 2 as follows:

a. Name of person(s) Served: b. Electronic service address of person(s) served:

Ribeiro Law Corporation, Attorney, [email protected]

Stocker & Lancaster, LLP, Attorney, [email protected]

United Hotel Liquidators, Defendant, [email protected]

c. On: 05/05/2016

d. At: 18:49:06

Date: 05/05/2016

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Scott Sheldon

>

5/5/2016

robert christopher ramirez 2150 peony street · robert christopher ramirez 2150 peony street...

Documents