robie & matthai a professional corporation

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 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

ROBIE & MATTHAI A Professional Corporation MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC, SBN 185551 GABRIELLE M. JACKSON, SBN 167528 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3950 Los Angeles, California 90071-2609 Telephone: (213) 706-8000 Facsimile: (213) 706-9913 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Cross-Defendant CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., a California Professional Corporation,

Plaintiff,

vs. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, STEVE BORISLAW MIKHOV, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants,

CASE NO.: 20STCV19127 [Assigned to the Hon. Timothy Patrick Dillon, Dept. 73] NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC

DATE: January 13, 2022 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT.: 73 Filing Date: May 19, 2020 Motion C/O: January 24, 2022 FSC Date: January 24, 2022 Trial Date: February 7, 2022 Disc. C/O: January 10, 2022

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP, a California limited liability partnership, Cross-Complainant, vs. HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., a California Professional Corporation, SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL H. ROSENSTEIN, LC, a California professional corporation; MICHAEL H. ROSENSTEIN, an individual; CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C., a California professional corporation; QUILL & ARROW, LLP, a California limited liability partnership; KEVIN Y. JACOBOSN, an individual; JONATHAN SHIRIAN, an individual , and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, Cross-Defendants.

of 57

nita.runyan

Typewritten Text

RESERVATION ID: 220288865281

of 57

1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 13,2022, at 8:30a.m., or as soon

2 thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department 73 of the above-entitled court, Cross-

3 Defendant California Consumer Attorneys ("CCA"), will and hereby does move this court

4 to quash or alternatively impose a protective order, as justice requires, regarding the

5 Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records ("Subpoena") dated September

6 4, 2021, to Zola Media.

7 This motion is made on the grounds that the Subpoena impermissibly seeks records

8 which are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this litigation, in that they concern

9 documents outside the scope of the trade secret disclosure made by Defendant and Cross-

1 0 Complainant Knight Law Group ("KLG"). This motion is brought under Code of Civil

11 Procedure section 1987.1 and is based upon this notice, the accompanying memorandum

12 of points and authorities attached hereto, the declaration of Marta A. Alcumbrac in

13 support, the complete files and records in this action, and upon such other oral and

14 documentary evidence that this court may allow at the time of the hearing.

15 DATED:

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

October 6, 2021

RTA A. ALCUMBRAC GABRIELLE M. JACKSON Attorneys for Cross-Defendants CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

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


INTRODUCTION

This Court should quash Defendant and Cross-Complainant Knight Law Group’s

(“KLG”) Subpoena directed to Zola Media, seeking all documents relating to marketing or

advertising work performed for Cross-Defendant California Consumer Attorneys

(“CCA”), including draft marketing plans, documents to show the date of first contact,

documents mentioning KLG, and documents provided by CCA. These documents are not

relevant to Knight’s claims; their only relevance is in connection to KLG’s trade secret

claims, however, KLG has established in this litigation that it is not claiming marketing or

advertising strategies as part of its claimed trade secrets.

CCA has tried to meet and confer in good faith with Defendant to resolve these

outstanding issues – all to no avail. Defendant and Cross-Complainant KLG continues to

improperly seek the production of this non-relevant information by way of the Subpoena.

Accordingly, the Court should grant CCA’s motion and quash the subpoena, or issue the

requested protective order.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

CCA is a California law firm that practices in the field of lemon law automobile

products liability. Sepehr Daghighian is a co-owner, along with Michael Rosenstein, of

CCA. Mr. Daghighian is also a partner at Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C.

KLG is a California law firm that also provides lemon law services.

This litigation arises from the former business relationship between Mr.

Daghighian, through the entity of which he was formerly a partner, Law Offices of Sepehr

Daghighian, P.C. (“LOSD”), and O’Connor & Mikhov (“OM”), the predecessor firm to

KLG. Mr. Daghighian, through LOSD, entered into a written contract with OM dated

December 3, 2015 (the “Agreement”). The Agreement concerned the parties’ arrangement

whereby OM would associate Mr. Daghighian in as trial counsel for some of its cases.

When Mr. Daghighian formed HDMN, the parties continued their relationship under the

terms of the Agreement.

of 57

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


By 2019, however, the relationship between the parties had deteriorated. HDMN

brought this lawsuit against KLG, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, unjust

enrichment, and others, based on HDMN’s allegations that OM/KLG had ceased making

payments to HDMN on its cases, and ceased assigning cases to HDMN. KLG cross-

complained, alleging causes of action including misappropriation of trade secrets. KLG’s

Cross-Complaint added CCA (among others) as a defendant, alleging that CCA

participated and conspired in the misappropriation of trade secrets.

On March 3, 2021, KLG filed its confidential disclosure of trade secrets pursuant to

Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. The disclosure, in its entirety, identified the

following trade secrets at issue in KLG’s misappropriation claim:

1. Client List: Knight maintains a list of clients and potential clients who have

contacted Knight for representation or potential representation. This information

is contained in a highly customized database.

2. Case Evaluation System: Knight has a system for the evaluation of potential new

cases. This system was developed through years of testing. It includes, for

example, highly honed templates that focus on upfront indicators about the

strength and value of cases.

3. Client Intake Protocol: Knight has a process and method that it uses for the

intake evaluation of potential new cases and clients. This protocol was

developed through years of testing and trial and error. The protocol creates a

system that enhances the chance of winning the case and organizing information

and the flow of the case, including time parameters for clients to successfully

bring a case, to enable the firm to handle a large volume of cases.

4. Vendor List: Knight possesses vendor lists with information that has been

developed through years of relationship building and learning and allows Knight

to handle a large volume of cases in an efficient manner. It includes pricing

information based on the large volume of cases that Knight handles.

(Alcumbrac Decl., para. 2; Exhibit 1.)

of 57

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


Following KLG’s trade secret disclosure, the parties conducted discovery based on

the trade secret categories identified by KLG in its disclosure, including written discovery,

the depositions of the principals of KLG, and of KLG’s Person Most Knowledgeable

regarding these topics. During the discovery, KLG narrowed the scope of the trade secret

claims against CCA to the following three items: (1) Client lists; (2) Vendor lists, and (3)

RO Summary Form. (Alcumbrac Decl., para. 3, Exhibit 2.) KLG’s never produced any

documents that reference its marketing activities or demonstrate an alleged marketing trade

secret. (Alcumbrac Decl., para. 4.)

On September 4, 2021, KLG served the Subpoena at issue on Zola Media. The

Subpoena seeks:

1. Any and all documents provided to You ("You" is defined as Zola Media and

any of its agents or representatives) by California Consumer Attorneys ("CCA"-

defined as CCA or any of its agents or representatives) related to marketing or

advetiisit1g (including, but not limited through SEO, internet ads, work related

to CCA's website, mailers etc.). for CCA. You may omit from the production

any confidential financial information, such as banking information, as well as

invoices and payment information.

2. Any and all documents created by You or for You in relation to providing

advertising or marketing services to CCA. You may omit from the production

any confidential financial information, such as banking information, as well as

invoices and payment information.

3. A copy of any marketing plan, or drafts of marketing plans, created by or for

CCA.

4. Documents sufficient to show the first date of contact between You and CCA.

5. Any documents that mention or refer to Knight or the Knight Law Group.

(Alcumbrac Decl., para. 5; Exhibit 3.)

Zola Media is CCA’s internet marketing vendor. (Alcumbrac Decl., para. 6.)

of 57

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


Subsequently, on September 15, 2021 – the day before CCA filed its Motion for

Summary Adjudication related to KLG’s trade secret claims – KLG filed an “amended”

disclosure statement, which although it contained the same categories of trade secret

described above, included (for the first time) a reference to marketing and advertising

based on KLG’s case evaluation system. (Alcumbrac Decl., para. 7; Exhibit 4.)

CCA objected to each of these requests on the ground that the documents they call

for are not relevant, because KLG is not entitled to discovery of requested materials

because it is beyond the scope of its trade secret claims. (Alcumbrac Decl., para. 8;

Exhibit 5.) CCA subsequently sent a meet and confer letter further setting out its position

and requesting that KLG withdraw the Subpoena. (Alcumbrac Decl., para. 9; Exhibit 6.)

As KLG refused to withdraw the Subpoena, the present motion was unavoidable.

(Alcumbrac Decl., para. 10.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

1. This Court Has The Authority To Quash the Subpoena or Issue a Protective

Order

Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.1(a) provides as follows: “If a subpoena

requires…the production of books, documents, electronically stored information, or other

things…the court, upon motion reasonably made by any person described in subdivision

(b)…may make an order quashing the subpoena entirely, modifying it, or directing

compliance with it upon those terms or conditions as the court shall declare, including

protective orders. In addition, the court may make any other orders as may be appropriate

to protect the person from unreasonable or oppressive demands. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §

1987(b) goes on to state: “The following persons may make a motion pursuant to

subdivision (a): (1) A party…”. In the context of non-party discovery subpoenas, the

courts have determined that requests that are not likely to lead to relevant or admissible

evidence are not reasonable. (See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2020; Calcor Space Facility, Inc.

v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 216, 221.)

of 57

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


Likewise, under the Discovery Act, courts have the power to issue protective orders

to protect litigants from discovery abuse. “The prevention of the abuse that can attend the

coerced production of information under a state’s discovery rule is sufficient justification

for the authorization of protective orders.” (Seattle Times v. Rhinehart (1984) 467 U.S. 20,

34; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1985.3(g).)

2. The Discovery Sought is Not Relevant to this Litigation

California Code of Civil Procedure section 2017.010 provides that discovery is only

permitted regarding "any matter not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter

involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if

the matter either is itself in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence." In addition, under California Code of Civil Procedure

section 2017.020, the trial court is authorized to limit the scope of discovery where, "the

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

the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." (See also

Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court (1993) 14 Cal. App. 4th 216, 223.) Finally,

subpoenas cannot be overbroad. They must comply with the bounds of proper discovery.

(C.C.P. § 2025.420.)

The documents sought by the Subpoena at issue are not relevant to the claims in this

litigation, and as such, are not discoverable. While KLG’s Cross-Complaint initially

identified “Knight’s marketing strategies and plans, including how Knight conducts its

marketing and through which vendors,” as one of its trade secrets, KLG’s March 3, 2021

disclosure made no reference to marketing or advertising at all. Because the disclosure is

controlling as to which trade secrets are at issue, the documents KLG now seeks (which all

concern marketing and advertising) are of no relevance to this litigation and cannot now be

discovered. (Pixion, Inc. v. PlaceWare, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2005) 421 F.Supp.2d 1233

[Interpreting California law to find that trade secret misappropriation plaintiff was bound

by its description of the secrets as made in the disclosure statement].)

CCA engaged in the discovery process in good faith, with the understanding that

of 57

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


KLG had complied with section 2019.210’s requirement that the trade secrets at issue be

described “with reasonable particularity” before discovery commences. Indeed, one of the

purposes of this statute is to allow the parties to focus their discovery efforts on the issues

that are actually relevant to the litigation. (Brescia v. Anglin (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 133,

144 [Purpose of section 2019.210 is to give enough information for court and defendant to

have reasonable notice of the issues and set the scope of discovery].) As one court

explained, “The trade secret designation mandated by section 2019.210 is not itself a

pleading but it functions like one in a trade secret case because it limits the scope of

discovery in much the same way as the allegations of a complaint limit discovery in other

types of civil actions.” (Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132

Cal.App.4th 826, 835; emphasis added.)

Furthermore, KLG’s untimely, improper “amended” disclosure is insufficient to

rescue the misguided Subpoena at issue here. The amended disclosure differs from the

original disclosure only as to one additional sentence, which reads (under “Case

Evaluation System), “In addition, Knight spends a large amount of time investigating and

analyzing which vehicles can form the basis of more profitable lemon law cases based on

the nature of their defects and then uses that information to target, through marketing and

advertising, those vehicle owners.” While KLG will undoubtedly argue that this last-

minute inclusion means that it is now permitted to seek discovery of marketing-related

information from non-parties such as Zola Media, the timing of the amended disclosure is

fatal to KLG’s argument.

KLG served its amended disclosure the day before CCA filed its Motion for

Summary Adjudication of the trade secret claims. Such a late amendment is impermissible

because it thwarts the purpose of section 2019.210. As one court explained, “The defense

must know enough about the claimed trade secret to permit the vital process of summary

judgment to proceed. […] The defense typically will aim its summary judgment motion at

the trade secret identification the plaintiff served under Code of Civil Procedure section

2019.210. But it destroys the utility of the summary judgment procedure for the plaintiff to

wait until after the defense has filed its summary judgment motion to announce there is a

of 57

of 57

1 new secret the plaintiff would like to define." (Coast Hematology-Oncology Associates

2 Med. Group, Inc. v. Long Beach Mem 'l Med. Center (2020) 58 Cal.App.51h 748, 759

3 (emphasis in original); see also Stutz Motor Car of Am., Inc. v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd (C.D. Cal

4 1995) 909 F .Supp 1353, 1360-61 [Plaintiff estopped from litigating trade secrets other than

5 those that were the subject of discovery between the parties].) KLG never sought leave of

6 Court to amend its designation, and it cannot now be permitted to unilaterally widen the

7 scope of discovery by seeking documents that are not discoverable under its original

8 section 2019.210 disclosure.

9 CONCLUSION

10 For the reasons set forth above, the Zola Media subpoena should be quashed. To the

11 extent this Court declines to quash the subpoena in its entirety, the Court should grant a

12 protective order in favor of CCA.

13 DATED:

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

October 6, 2021

T A A. ALCUMBRAC GABRIELLE M. JACKSON Attorneys for Cross-Defendants CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.


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


DECLARATION OF MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC

I, MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC, declare:

1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts of the

State of California and am a principal in the law firm of Robie & Matthai, attorneys of

record for defendant California Consumer Attorneys, P.C. in this action. I have personal

knowledge of each and every fact stated in this Declaration, and could and would

competently testify to those facts if called as a witness at trial.

2. On March 3, 2021, KLG filed its confidential disclosure of trade secrets

pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. The disclosure, in its entirety,

identified the following trade secrets at issue in KLG’s misappropriation claim:

A. Client List: Knight maintains a list of clients and potential clients who

have contacted Knight for representation or potential representation.

This information is contained in a highly customized database.

B. Case Evaluation System: Knight has a system for the evaluation of

potential new cases. This system was developed through years of

testing. It includes, for example, highly honed templates that focus on

upfront indicators about the strength and value of cases.

C. Client Intake Protocol: Knight has a process and method that it uses

for the intake evaluation of potential new cases and clients. This

protocol was developed through years of testing and trial and error.

The protocol creates a system that enhances the chance of winning the

case and organizing information and the flow of the case, including

time parameters for clients to successfully bring a case, to enable the

firm to handle a large volume of cases.

D. Vendor List: Knight possesses vendor lists with information that has

been developed through years of relationship building and learning

and allows Knight to handle a large volume of cases in an efficient

of 57

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

11NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

manner. It includes pricing information based on the large volume of

cases that Knight handles.

Attached as Exhibit 1 to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of the March 3, 2021,

confidential disclosure of trade secrets pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section

2019.210 filed by KLG.

3. Following KLG’s trade secret disclosure, the parties conducted discovery

based on the trade secret categories identified by KLG in its disclosure, including written

discovery, the depositions of the principals of KLG, and of KLG’s Person Most

Knowledgeable regarding these topics. During the discovery, KLG narrowed the scope of

the trade secret claims against CCA to the following three items: (1) Client lists; (2)

Vendor lists, and (3) RO Summary Form. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this Declaration is a

true and correct copy of Cross-Complainant KLG’s Second Supplemental Responses to

Cros—Defendant CCA’s Special Interrogatories (Set One) dated July 9, 2021.

4. KLG has never produced any documents that reference it marketing

activities or demonstrate an alleged marketing trade secret.

5. On September 4, 2021, KLG served the Subpoena at issue on Zola Media.

The Subpoena seeks:

A. Any and all documents provided to You ("You" is defined as Zola

Media and any of its agents or representatives) by California

Consumer Attorneys ("CCA"- defined as CCA or any of its agents or

representatives) related to marketing or advetiisit1g (including, but

not limited through SEO, internet ads, work related to CCA's website,

mailers etc.). for CCA. You may omit from the production any

confidential financial information, such as banking information, as

well as invoices and payment information.

B. Any and all documents created by You or for You in relation to

providing advertising or marketing services to CCA. You may omit

of 57

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

12NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

from the production any confidential financial information, such as

banking information, as well as invoices and payment information.

C. A copy of any marketing plan, or drafts of marketing plans, created by

or for CCA.

D. Documents sufficient to show the first date of contact between You

and CCA.

E. Any documents that mention or refer to Knight or the Knight Law

Group.

Attached as Exhibit 3 to this Declaration is a true and correct copy of the Subpoena

issued on Zola Media.

6. Zola Media is CCA’s internet marketing vendor.

7. Subsequently, on September 15, 2021 – the day before CCA filed its Motion

for Summary Adjudication related to KLG’s trade secret claims – KLG filed an

“amended” disclosure statement, which although it contained the same categories of trade

secret described above, included (for the first time) a reference to marketing and

advertising based on KLG’s case evaluation system. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and

correct copy of KLG’s Amended Statement Pursuant to CCP Section 2019.210 dated

September 15, 2021.

8. CCA objected to each of these requests on the ground that the documents

they call for are not relevant, because KLG is not entitled to discovery of requested

materials because it is beyond the scope of its trade secret claims. Attached as Exhibit 5 to

this Declaration is a true and correct copy of CCA’s Objection to the Deposition

Subpoena for Production of Business Records to Zola Media dated September 24, 2021.

9. CCA subsequently sent a meet and confer letter further setting out its

position and requesting that KLG withdraw the Subpoena. Attached as Exhibit 6 to this

Declaration is a true and correct copy of my September 27, 2021 meet and confer letter to

counsel for KLG, Brian Center. Mr. Center and I exchanged a series of emails after the

September 27 2021 letter was sent.

of 57

of 57

1 10. As KLG refused to withdraw the Subpoena, the present motion was

2 unavoidable.

3 I declare under penalty of perjury un r the laws of the State of California that the

4 forgoing is true and correct. Executed this , in Los Angeles, California.

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC


1

CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT PER CCP SECTION 2019.210

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

David W.T. Brown, State Bar No. 147321

Brian Center, Esq., State Bar No. 166583

HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP

1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202

Redondo Beach, CA 9027

Tel.: (310) 545-5459

[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants

Knight Law Group, LLP and Steve Mikhov

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE


Plaintiff,

vs.

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California Limited

Liability Partnership, STEVE BORISLAV

MIKHOV, an individual, and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendant.

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP, a California

limited liability partnership,

Cross-complainant,

vs.

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO &

NOVAK, P.C., a California professional

corporation; SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN, an

individual; CALIFORNIA CONSUMER

ATTORNEYS, P.C., a California professional

corporation; QUILL & ARROW, LLP, a

California limited liability partnership; KEVIN

Y. JACOBSON, an individual; and Roes 1

through 20, inclusive,

Cross-Defendants.

Case No.: 20STCV19127

Judge Rafael A. Ongkeko, Dept 73

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP’S STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 2019.210

[Confidential]

EXHIBIT 1 - Page 1 of 3

of 57

2

CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT PER CCP SECTION 2019.210

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

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Knight

Law Group, LLP (“Knight”) identifies the following trade secrets at issue in its claim for

misappropriation in this litigation:1


contacted Knight for representation or potential representation. This information is

contained in a highly customized database.



example, highly honed templates that focus on upfront indicators about the strength

and value of cases.

3. Client Intake Protocol: Knight has a process and method that it uses for the intake

evaluation of potential new cases and clients. This protocol was developed through

years of testing and trial and error. The protocol creates a system that enhances the

chance of winning the case and organizing information and the flow of the case,

including time parameters for clients to successfully bring a case, to enable the firm

to handle a large volume of cases.


developed through years of relationship building and learning and allows Knight to

handle a large volume of cases in an efficient manner. It includes pricing


Dated: March 3, 2021 HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP

By: ___________________________

Brian Center, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant

Knight Law Group, LLP and Defendant Steve

Mikhov

1 Knight also maintains other trade secrets that are not listed herein and does not waive any rights with regard to their

protection.


of 57

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of

18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 1200 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 202, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.

On March 3, 2021 I served the foregoing documents described as • KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP’S STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 2019.210

on the interested parties specified below, via the form of service marked below:

Mark C. Carlson, Esq., Nathan M. Kelfer, Esq. CARLSON LAW GROUP, INC. 6300 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1300 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone No.: (818) 996-7800 Facsimile No.: (818) 884-4285 Email: [email protected]

Marshall Cole, Esq. NEMECK COLE 16255 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 300, Encino, CA 91436 Tel 818.788.9500 | Fax 818.501.0328 [email protected] [email protected]

Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq. Natalie Derghazarian, Esq. Kristina Stepanyan Quill & Arrow LLP 10900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC Robie & Matthai 350 S. Grand Avenue Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 [email protected]

[X] (ELECTRONIC MAIL)By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on theservice list.

Executed on March 3, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

__________________ Vicky Daniels


of 57

mailto:[email 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

1

CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S 2nd SUPP. RESPONSES TO CCA’S SI, SET ONE

HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP DAVID W.T. BROWN – Bar No. 147321 BRIAN D. CENTER – Bar No. 166583 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Telephone: (310) 545-5459 Attorney for Defendant/Cross-complainant Knight Law Group and Defendant Steve Mikhov



HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

vs. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, STEVE BORISLAW MIKHOV, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

CASE NO: 20STCV19127 CROSS-COMPLAINANT KNIGHT LAW GROUP’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO CROSS-DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS P.C.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant CALIFORNIA CONSUMER

ATTORNEYS P.C.

RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Complainant KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP

SET NUMBER: ONE

EXHIBIT 2 - Page 1 of 16 of 57

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


Cross-complainant KNIGHT LAW GROUP (“KNIGHT”) hereby objects and responds to

Cross-Defendant CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS P.C.’s (“CCA”) Special

Interrogatories, Set One as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Cross-complainant KNIGHT makes these responses solely for the purpose of this action.

KNIGHT has not completed discovery in this action, or an investigation of all the facts underlying

this lawsuit, or preparation of this case for trial. The responses contained herein are in a good faith

effort to supply as much information as is presently known to KNIGHT. Further discovery and

investigation may lead to the discovery of additional information responsive to these requests.

Accordingly, the following responses are without prejudice to KNIGHT’s right to produce evidence

of any subsequently discovered information.

Any information provided in response to these requests is subject to any and all objections

regarding competence, relevance, materiality, propriety and admissibility. The following responses

are subject to all objections if offered in court, and all such objections are reserved and may be

interposed at the time of trial or at any other time.

KNIGHT makes no incidental or implied admissions by these responses. Accordingly, CCA

shall not construe KNIGHT’s responses or objections to these requests as an admission of the

existence of any fact set forth or assumed by these requests, or that such responses constitute

admissible evidence. The fact that KNIGHT has answered any request or any portion thereof is not

intended to nor shall it be construed to be as a waiver of all or any part of any objection to any

request.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

KNIGHT’s responses to each request are subject to the general objections set forth below.

These general objections form a part of the response to each request and are set forth here to avoid

the duplication and repetition of restating them for each response.

1. KNIGHT objects to these requests to the extent they seek information that is

protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or

any other applicable privileged or protected information, including those pertaining to trade secrets.


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 the extent that the requests may be construed as seeking such privileged or protected information,

KNIGHT hereby claims such privilege and invokes such privilege. The fact that KNIGHT does not

specifically object to an individual request on the ground that it seeks such privileged or protected

information is not a waiver of the protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege, the work

product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection.

2. KNIGHT objects to the extent that these requests seek information or documents

from third parties or which is protected from compelled disclosure under the California Constitution,

Article 1, Section 1, and the United States Constitution.

3. KNIGHT objects to the extent that these requests seek information that is irrelevant

and/or not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4. KNIGHT objects to the extent that the requests seek documents or information that

are not in KNIGHT’s possession, custody, or control.

The foregoing objections and qualifications apply to the responses contained herein and are

incorporated by reference to the extent applicable to the specific responses set forth below as though

fully set forth therein. The failure to mention any of the foregoing objections and qualifications in

the specific responses set forth below shall not be deemed a waiver of such objection or

qualification.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

IDENTIFY in specificity, each of Knight’s trade secrets which was allegedly

misappropriated by CCA.

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

KNIGHT incorporates the preliminary statement and general objections above by reference.

Without waiving any objection, KNIGHT responds as follows:

1. Client List: Knight maintains a list of clients and potential clients who have contacted

Knight for representation or potential representation. This information is contained

in a highly customized database.


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



cases. This system was developed through years of testing and through diligent

research. It includes, for example, highly honed templates that focus on upfront

indicators about the strength and value of cases and researched information about the

strength of cases.







4. Vendor List: Knight possesses vendor lists with information that has been developed

through years of relationship building and learning and allows Knight to handle a

large volume of cases in an efficient manner. It includes pricing information based

on the large volume of cases that Knight handles.


IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that identify each of Knight’s trade secrets that were

allegedly misappropriated by CCA.



KNIGHT objects to this request to the extent it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-

client privilege, work product doctrine or seeks trade secret information. KNIGHT further objects

to the extent this request is overly broad, vague and burdensome. Without waiving any objection,

KNIGHT responds as follows: (1) Client list. (2) Vendor List. (3) RO Summary form. Discovery

is continuing.


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



State all facts which support your claim that Knight has been damaged by CCA’s alleged

misappropriation of Knight’s trade secrets.



KNIGHT further objects to the extent this request is duplicative of discovery previously propounded

and responded to in this matter (Form Interrogatory 17.1, RFA 10-11). Subject to and

notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Damages for CCA’s

misappropriation of trade secrets include CCA’s profits derived from the misappropriation,

attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Discovery is continuing


IDENTIFY each actual loss Knight has suffered as a result of CCA’s alleged

misappropriation of trade secret information, as alleged by Knight in paragraph 126 of the cross¬

complaint.



KNIGHT objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or other

sensitive business data or information. KNIGHT objects to this request to the extent it calls for an

expert opinion and constitutes a premature request for expert discovery. KNIGHT further objects to

the extent this request is duplicative of discovery previously propounded and responded to in this

matter (Form Interrogatory 17.1, RFA 10-11). Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing,

KNIGHT responds as follows: Damages for CCA’s misappropriation of trade secrets include

CCA’s profits derived from the misappropriation, attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Knight has

not identified out of pocket losses at this time; discovery is continuing.


IDENTIFY each WITNESS that can offer evidence related to each of Knight’s actual losses

suffered as a result of CCA’s alleged misappropriation of trade secret information, as alleged by

Knight in paragraph 126 of the cross-complaint.


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




KNIGHT objects to this request to the extent it seeks confidential, proprietary, trade secret, or other

sensitive business data or information. KNIGHT objects to this request to the extent it calls for an

expert opinion and constitutes a premature request for expert discovery. KNIGHT further objects

to the extent this request is duplicative of discovery previously propounded and responded to in this

matter (Form Interrogatory 17.1, RFA 10-11.) Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing,

KNIGHT responds as follows: Leon Boyer.


IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that evidences each of Knight’s actual losses suffered as a

result of CCA’s alleged misappropriation of trade secret information, as alleged by Knight in

paragraph 126 of the cross-complaint.





to the extent this request is duplicative of discovery previously propounded and responded to in this

matter (Form Interrogatory 17.1, RFA 10-11). Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing,

KNIGHT responds as follows: None at this time. Discovery is continuing.


IDENTIFY each fact which support YOUR claim that CCA intentionally interfered with any

of Knight’s contractual relations, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross¬ complaint.



KNIGHT objects to this request to the extent it calls for information protected from disclosure by

the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product doctrine. This Interrogatory also is

duplicative (Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, RFA No. 6.) Subject to and notwithstanding the

foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Knight contends that CCA has interfered with Knight’s


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


December 2015 contract (the “Agreement”) with HDMN, including its provisions to not compete

and not solicit employees. Facts that support this claim include that Mr. Daghighian is a partner of

CCA; CCA and HDMN have filed lemon law cases in violation of the Agreement; CCA has made

efforts to support HDMN’s violation of the Agreement, including by working together, sharing

office space and information with HDMN; and by hiring away Knight employees. Discovery is

continuing. CCA also has filed a number of cases for clients who previously were Knight’s clients.


IDENTIFY each WITNESS which support of YOUR claim that CCA intentionally

interfered with any of Knight’s contractual relations, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR

cross-complaint.



This Interrogatory also is duplicative (Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, RFA No. 6.). Subject to and

notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Sepehr Daghighian; Michael

Rosenstein; Kevin Jacobson; Jonathan Shirian.


IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that supports YOUR claim that CCA intentionally interfered

with any of Knight’s contractual relations, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-

complaint.




client privilege or work product doctrine. This Interrogatory also is duplicative (Form Interrogatory

No. 17.1, RFA No. 6.) Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows:

None at this time. Discovery is continuing.


State all facts that support YOUR contention that CCA stole clients from Knight, as alleged

by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-complaint.


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







Knight contends that Cross-defendants misappropriated Knight’s trade secrets and confidential

information, including client information. Discovery is continuing as to the extent of Cross-

defendants’ conduct. The Requests are vague in their reference to CCA, because it is unclear at this

stage whether the wrongful acts were undertaken by individuals operating under the heading of

CCA, HDMN, LOMR and/or Quill & Arrow, given that all of the Cross-Defendants have worked

together to compete with Knight after the entities or individuals who now work for or own the

entities, worked in Knight’s office space. For example, to date Knight has found 6 clients

represented by HDMN (Navarrete, Ruiz, Torres, Lopez, Jiminez, Tom/Kessler) who were in

Knight’s database and discovery is continuing as to whether Mr. Daghighian was acting on behalf

of HDMN, CCA or both as to those clients). Similarly, Knight has found 4 clients (Danelian,

Sandoval/Martinez, Padilla/Dorantes and Florian) who were in its database and then represented by

CCA. Discovery is being conducted to determine CCA’s role in obtaining those clients.


IDENTIFY each WITNESS that can offer evidence in support of YOUR contention that

CCA stole clients from Knight, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-complaint.



This Interrogatory also is duplicative (Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, RFA No. 1.) Subject to and

notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Leon Boyer.


IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that supports YOUR contention that CCA stole clients

from Knight, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-complaint.


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







None at this time. Discovery is continuing.


State all damages YOU claim in relation YOUR claim that CCA stole cases from Knight,

as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-complaint.



This Interrogatory also is duplicative (Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, RFA No. 10-11.) Subject to and

notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Damages for CCA’s theft of clients

include CCA’s profits derived from it and/or lost profits from any stolen cases, attorneys’ fees and

punitive damages. CCA also is jointly and severally liable for the $20,000 liquidated damages clause

in the December 2015 Agreement signed by CCA’s partner, Mr. Daghighian. Discovery is

continuing as to those issues.


IDENTIFY each WITNESS that can offer evidence in support of YOUR claim that CCA

stole cases from Knight, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-complaint.






Leon Boyer.


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



IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that supports YOUR claim that CCA stole cases from

Knight, as alleged by YOU in paragraph 130 of YOUR cross-complaint.




client privilege, work product doctrine or seeks trade secret information. This Interrogatory also is

duplicative (Form Interrogatory No. 17.1, RFA No. 2.) Subject to and notwithstanding the

foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: None (other than the Complaints that demonstrate that

CCA represented clients Danelian, Sandoval, Padilla and Florian). Discovery is continuing.


IDENTIFY each client that CCA allegedly stole from Knight.




client privilege, work product doctrine or seeks trade secret information. Subject to and

notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Anifa Danelian, Caritina Sandoval,

Leticia Martinez, Israel Padilla, Josue Salinas Dorantes, Rose Amanda Florian, Henry Florian.

Discovery is continuing.


IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that supports YOUR claim that CCA stole each client from

YOU.





notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: None (other than the Complaints

showing that these clients were represented by CCA). Discovery is continuing.


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



IDENTIFY each WITNESS that supports YOUR contention that CCA stole clients from

YOU.




client privilege, work product doctrine or seeks trade secret information. This Interrogatory is also

duplicative of the Interrogatories above. Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT

responds as follows: Leon Boyer.


IDENTIFY all confidential information that CCA misappropriated from Knight.





notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows:

1. Client List: Knight maintains a list of clients and potential clients who have contacted Knight

for representation or potential representation. This information is contained in a highly

customized database.


cases. This system was developed through years of testing. It includes, for example,

highly honed templates and researched information about specific cars that focus on

upfront indicators about the strength and value of cases.








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

12


4. Vendor List: Knight possesses vendor lists with information that has been developed

through years of relationship building and learning and allows Knight to handle a

large volume of cases in an efficient manner. It includes pricing information based

on the large volume of cases that Knight handles.


IDENTIFY all WITNESSES that support YOUR contention that CCA misappropriated

confidential information from Knight.





notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Leon Boyer, David Rozinsky.


IDENTIFY all DOCUMENTS that support YOUR contention that CCA misappropriated

confidential information from Knight.





notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: None at this time. Discovery is

continuing.


INDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that supports YOUR contention that Knight kept each

trade secret confidential.





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

13



to the extent this request is overly broad, vague and burdensome. KNIGHT further objects to the

extent this request is duplicative of discovery previously propounded and responded to in this matter.

Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Confidentiality

agreements provided by Knight to employees (see Knight 023414-023486; 042144-042148); the

December 2015 agreement with HDMN.


IDENTIFY each DOCUMENT that supports YOUR contention that CCA used Knight’s

trade secret.







Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: None (other than

Complaints showing CCA represented Knight clients identified above). Discovery is continuing.


IDENTIFY all WITNESSES that support YOUR contention that Knight had trade secrets.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 70:






Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Leon Boyer, David

Rozinsky.


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

14



IDENTIFY all WITNESSES that support YOUR contention that CCA used Knight’s trade

secrets.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 71:






Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing, KNIGHT responds as follows: Leon Boyer.

DATED: July 7, 2021 HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP

______________________________ Brian D. Center, Esq. Attorney for Defendant/Cross-complainant Knight Law Group and Defendant Steve Mikhov


VERIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. )

I have read the foregoing CROSS-COMPLAINANT KNIGHT LAW

-DEFENDANT

INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE and know its contents.

I am Leon Boyer, COO for Knight Law Group the Defendant/Cross-Complainant

in this action, and I make this verification on my behalf. The matters stated in the

foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are

stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

Executed on July 7, 2021 in Los Angeles, CA.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

______________________________ Leon Boyer

EXHIBIT 2 - Page 15 of 16EXHIBIT 2 - Page 15 of 16 of 57

PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of

18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 1200 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 202, Redondo Beach, CA 90278. On July 9, 2021 I served the foregoing documents described as

• CROSS-COMPLAINANT KNIGHT LAW GROUP’S THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO CROSS-COMPLAINANT CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS’S FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

• CROSS-COMPLAINANT KNIGHT LAW GROUP’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO CROSS-DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS P.C.’S SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

on the interested parties specified below, via the form of service marked below: Mark C. Carlson, Esq., Nathan M. Kelfer, Esq. CARLSON LAW GROUP, INC. 6300 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1300 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone No.: (818) 996-7800 Facsimile No.: (818) 884-4285 Email: [email protected] Marshall Cole, Esq. NEMECK COLE 16255 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 300, Encino, CA 91436 Tel 818.788.9500 | Fax 818.501.0328 [email protected] [email protected]

Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq. Natalie Derghazarian, Esq. Kristina Stepanyan Quill & Arrow LLP 10900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC Robie & Matthai 350 S. Grand Avenue Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 [email protected]

[X] (ELECTRONIC MAIL)

By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on the service list. Executed on July 9, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of

perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

__________________ Vicky Daniels










~~ FIRSTLE~~~ September 4, 2021

MARTA A ALCUMBRAC, ESQ Robie & Matthai APC 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071

NOTICE TO COUNSEL

First Legal Records 1511 Beverly Blvd

Los Angeles CA, 90026 Phone: (877) 591·9979 Fax: (877) 823·7488

Plaintiff: HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Defendant: KNIGHT LAW GROUP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, STEVE BORISLAV MIKHOV, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,

Court: LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Case# 20STCV19127

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed, please find Notice to Counsel.

Thank you ,

....___ __ ---· . / .-- ·--.-?'" .-·-..... ?CY,_ ... _ --~

----·=- (__)

MANI PHOMMASAYSY

08604686-01/FR-OpConNotice


SUBP-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, stale Bornumber; and address):

FOR COURT USE ONlY Brian D. Center (SBN: 166583) Huskinson. Brown & Heidenreich, LLP 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202 Redondo Beach, CA 90278

TELEPHONE NO.: 31 0-545-5459 FAX NO.:

E·MAIL ADDRESS; [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Defendant Knight Law Group

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES sTREET ADDREss: 111 North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS:

CITY AND ZIP coDE: Los Angeles, CA 90012 BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

PLAINTIFF/ PETITIONER: Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT: Knight Law Group, et al

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA CASE NUMBER:

FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS 20STCV19127

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO (name, address, and telephone number of deponent, if known): Zola Media, 10 Harbor Park Drive, 2nd Floor, Port Washington, NY 11050 1. YOU ARE ORDERED TO PRODUCE THE BUSINESS RECORDS described in item 3, as follows:

To (name of deposition officer): First Legal Records c/o PM Legal

On (date) : 09/28/2021 At (time) : 10:00 a.m.

Location (address): 1235 Broadway, 2ndfloor, New York, NY 10001

Do not release the requested records to the deposition officer prior to the date and time stated above.

a. m by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3, enclosed in a sealed inner wrapper with the title and number of the action, name of witness, and date of subpoena clearly written on it. The inner wrapper shall then be enclosed in an outer envelope or wrapper, seated, and mailed to the deposition officer at the address in item 1.

b. D by delivering a true, legible, and durable copy of the business records described in item 3 to the deposition officer at the witness's address, on receipt of payment in cash or by check of the reasonable costs of preparing the copy, as determined under Evidence Code section 1563(b).

c. D by making the original business records described in item 3 available for inspection at your business address by the attorney.'s representative and permitting copying at your business address under reasonable conditions during normal business hours.

2. The records are to be produced by the date and lime shown In Item 1 (but not sooner than 20 days after the Issuance of the deposition subpoena, or 15 days after service, whichever date is later). Reasonable costs of locating records, making them available or copying them, and postage, 1f any, are recoverable as set forth in Evidence Code section 1563(b). The records shall be accompanied by an affidavit of lhe custodian or other qualmed witness pursuant to Evidence Code section 1561.

3. The records to be produced are described as follows ((f electronically stored information is demanded, the form or forms in which each type of information is to be produced may be specified): See attachment 3 CRJ Continued on Attachment 3.

4. IF YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS SUBPOENA AS A CUSTODIAN OF CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS UNDER CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1985.3 OR 1985.6 AND A MOTION TO QUASH OR AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN SERVED ON YOU, A COURT ORDER OR AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, WITNESSES, AND CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE AFFECTED MUST BE OBTAINED BEFORE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE CONSUMER OR EMPLOYEE RECORDS.

Date Issued: September__:::?_, 2021

Brian D. Center (TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

F llm1 Adoplod Car Mandatory Use Jud dal Council of Calrromia

SUBP-010 [Rev. Janua1]11 , 2012]

(Proof of service on reverse)

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

Pago1 of2

Code of Civil Procedure, §§ 2020.410-2020.4<10; Govemmenl Code, § 68097.1

1\IWW.coutts.ca.gav


SUBP-010 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. CASE NUMBER:

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: Knight law Group, et al 20STCV19127

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

1. I served this Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records by personally delivering a copy to the person served as follows:

a. Person served (name) :

b. At:ldress where served:

c. Date of delivery:

d. Time of delivery:

e. (1) D Witness fees were paid. Amount: . ..•...... . . .. $----- ---- - -

(2) D Copying fees were paid. Amount: .... .. .... . . . . $-----------

f. Fee for service: . . .. .. ........ .. $ ----- - -----

2. I received this subpoena for service on (date):

3. Person serving:

a. D Not a registered California process server.

b. D California sheriff or marshal.

c. D Registered California process server. d. D Employee or independent contractor of a registered California process server.

e. D Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22350(b).

f. D Registered professional photocopier.

g. D Exempt from registration under Business and Professions Code section 22451 .

h. Name, address, telephone number, and, if applicable, county of registration and number:

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

(For California sheriff or marshal use only) I certify that the foregoing is true and correct.

Date:

{SIGNATURE)

SUBP-010 [Rev. January 1, 2012)

Date:

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

'(SIGNATURE)

Page2of2


Attachment 3

1. Any and all documents provided to You ("You" is defined as Zola Media and any of its agents or representatives) by Califomia Consumer Attorneys ("CCA"- defined as CCA or any of its agents or representatives) related to marketing or advetiising (including, but not limited through SEO, internet ads, work related to CCA's website, mailers etc). for CCA. You may omit from the production any confidential financial information, such as banking information, as weJJ as invoices and payment information.

2. Any and all documents created by You ot for You in relation to providing advertising or marketing services to CCA. You may omit from the production any confidential financial information, such as banking information, as well as invoices and payment information.

3. A copy of any marketing plan, or drafts of marketing plans, created by or for CCA.

4. Documents sufficic:mt to show the first date of contact between You and CCA.



STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU

HACKLER DAGJUGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., a California Professional Corporation,

Plaintiff!Petitioner, v.

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, STEVE BORISLA V MIKHOV, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant/Respondent.

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP, a California limited liability partnership,

Cross·Complainant,

HACKLER DAGHJGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., a California professional corporation; SEPEHR DAGHIGH1AN, an individual; CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P .C., a California professional corporation; QUILL & ARROW, LLP, a California limited liability pa1inership; KEVIN Y. JACOBSON, an individual; and Roes 1 through 20, inclusive,

Cross-Defendants

COUNTY CLERK LOG NO. _____ _

SUBPOENA (pursuant to the Uniform l_.terstate Deposition and Discovery Act and CPLR§3119)

Originating State: California

Originating County:

Originating O:~urt:

Originating Case number:

SUBPOENA/ SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM Pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Discovery Act

(Personal Attendance Not Required)

TO: Zola Media 10 Harbor Park Drive, 2"d Floor, Port Washington, NY 11050

WE COMMAND YOU to produce and permit inspection of documents in lieu of appearanc.e at

a deposition in this civil action to the office of First Legal Records c/o PM Legal. 1235 Broadway,

Ill


2nd Floor, New York, NY 10001 , (877) 591-9979 on or before the 29th day of October 2021 at 10:00

a.m., or at any recessed or adjourned date on the part of Defendant, Knight Law Group.

Produce at the time and place aforesaid, the following documents, electronically stored

information, or objects, and petmit their inspection, copying, testing or sampling ofthe material:

SEE ATIACHMENT 3

Pursuant to CPLR §3122(a) and 2303(a) requires that any subpoena duces tecum served on a medical provider requesting the production of medical records, whether at the pre-trial or tri.al stage of the litigation, be accompanied by a written authorization signed by the claimant.

F AlLURE TO COMPLY with this SUBPOENA is punishable as a contempt of Court and shal I

make you liable to the person on whose behalf this subpoena was issued for a penalty not to exceed one

hundred fifty dollars and all damages sustained by reason ofyour failure to comply.

Additional Information: [if any is contained in the Out-of-State subpoena]

Contact Information of Counsel for all parties (or contact information for parties prose) in the action:

SEE ATTACHED LIST OF COUNSEL

Dated: September___, 2021 California (state)

Telephone:

r, Esq. l200 Aviation Blvd. , Suite 202 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (31 0) 545-5459

MAUREEN 0' CONNELL Nassau County Clerk


LIST OF ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD HACKLER DAGHJGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK. P.C. vs. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, eta/.

Case No. 20STCVJ912

Mark C. Carlson, Esq., Marshall Cole, Esq. Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq.

Nathan M. Keifer, Esq. NEMECKCOLE Natalie Derghazarian, Esq.

CARLSON LAW GROUP, INC. 16255 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 300, Kristina Stepanyan, Esq. Encino, CA 91436 QUILL & ARROW LLP

6300 Canoga A venue, Suite 1300 10900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Tel818.788.9500

Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel. No.: (818) 996-7800 Fax 818.501.0328 Phone: (888) 399-7211 Faxe No.: (818) 884-4285 [email protected] kjacobson[a\guillarrowlaw.com rncc(a),carlsonlaweroug.com kmor2ane lla@nemecek -cole.com nderg[a\guillarrowlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross- Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross kstenla\guillan-owlaw .com Defendants and Cross-Defendant Defendants Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Michael H Rosenstein Quill & Arrow

Marta Alcumbrac, Esq. David W.T. Brown, SBN 147321 Roger Kimes, Esq. ROBIE & MATTHAI Brian Center, Esq., SBN 166583 Knight Law Group 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3950

Paul E. Heidenreich, SBN 116618 10250 Constellation Boulevard,

Los Angeles, CA 90071 Suite 2500 Phone: (213) 706-8000 HUSKINSON, BROWN & Los Angeles, CA 90067 [email protected] HEIDENREICH, LLP Telephone No. :(31 0)552-2250 Attorneys for Cross-Defendants, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202 Email: [email protected] !!htlaw.eom California Consumer Attorneys, Redondo Beach, CA 9027 Attorney for Defendants, Knight P.C. Tel.: (31 0) 545-5459 Law Group and Steve Mikhov

bcenter@bbh lln.com [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Knight Law Group and Defendant Steve Mikhov


Attachment 3

1. Any and aJl documents provided to You ("You" is defined as Zola Media and any of its agents or representatives) by California Consumer Attorneys ("CCA"- defined as CCA or any of its agents or representatives) related to marketing or advertising (including, but not limited through SEO, internet ads, work related to CCA's website, mailers etc). for CCA. You may omit from the production any confidential financial information, such as banking information, as well as invoices and payment information.

2. Any and all documents created by You or for You in relation to providing advertising or marketing services to CCA. You may omit from the production any confidential financial information, such as banking information, as well as invoices and payment information.

3. A copy of any marketing plan, or drafts of marketing plans, created by or for CCA.

4. Documents sufficient to show the first date of contact between You and CCA.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

2 0

21

22

2 3

24

2 5

26

27

28

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. vs. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, et al. Case No. 20STCV1912

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am a resident of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 1511 Beverly

Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90026.

On September__Q7_, 2021 , I served the foregoing document(s) described as DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS; PROPOSED NEW YORK SUBPOENA/SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, on the interested parties in said action:

[X] By placing the original and/or a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as

follows: SEE ATTACHED LIST OF COUNSEL

[X] (BY MAIL) I deposited such envelope in an internal collection basket. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid from Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with the office's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if a postal cancellation date or postage meter date

is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the

offices of the addressee.

[ ] (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I delivered to an authorized driver authorized by Overnite Express to receive documents, in an envelope or package designated by Overnite Express with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person on who it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party

making service; or at the party' s place of residence.

[X] (STATE) I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California,

that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September _Ql_, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.

Mani Phommasaysy


LIST OF ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD HACKLERDAGHIGHIANMARTINO&NOVAI( P.C. vs. KNIGHTLAWGROUP, eta!.

Case No. 20STCV1912

Mark C. Carlson, Esq., Marshall Cole, Esq. Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq.

Nathan M. Keifer, Esq. NEMECKCOLE Natalie Derghazarian, Esq.

CARLSON LAW GROUP, INC. 16255 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 300, Kristina Stepanyan, Esq. Encino, CA 91436 QUILL & ARROW LLP

6300 Canoga A venue, Suite 1300 I 0900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Tel 818.788.9500

Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel. No.: (818) 996-7800 Fax 818.501.0328 Phone: (888) 399-7211 Faxe No.: (818) 884-4285 [email protected] kjacobson{a).guillarrowlaw.com mcc{a).carlsonlawgroug.com [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross- Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Cross ksteg{a).guillarrowlaw.com Defendants and Cross-Defendant Defendants Attorneys for Cross-Defendant Michael H Rosenstein Quill & Arrow

Marta Alcumbrac, Esq. David W.T. Brown, SBN 147321 Roger Kimos, Esq. ROBIE & MATTHAI Brian Center, Esq., SBN 166583 Knight Law Group 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3950 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90071 Paul E. Heidenreich, SBN 116618 Suite 2500 Phone: (213) 706-8000 HUSKINSON, BROWN & Los Angeles, CA 90067 MAlcumbrac@romalaw .com HEIDENREICH, LLP Telephone No. :(310)552-2250 Attorneys for Cross-Defendants, 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202 Email : [email protected] California Consumer Attorneys, Redondo Beach, CA 9027 Attorney for Defendants, Knight P.C. Tel.: (310) 545-5459 Law Group and Steve Mikhov

bcenter@J:!bhllg.com [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Knight Law Group and Defendant Steve Mikhov

1 CROSS-COMPLAINANT’S AMENDED STATEMENT PER CCP SECTION 2019.210

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

David W.T. Brown, State Bar No. 147321 Brian Center, Esq., State Bar No. 166583 HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP 1200 Aviation Blvd., Suite 202 Redondo Beach, CA 9027 Tel.: (310) 545-5459 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Complainants Knight Law Group, LLP and Steve Mikhov

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE


Plaintiff,

vs. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, STEVE BORISLAV MIKHOV, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendant. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP, a California limited liability partnership, Cross-complainant, vs. HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., a California professional corporation; SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN, an individual; CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C., a California professional corporation; QUILL & ARROW, LLP, a California limited liability partnership; KEVIN Y. JACOBSON, an individual; and Roes 1 through 20, inclusive,

Case No.: 20STCV1927 Judge Timothy Patrick Dillon, Dept 73

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP’S AMENDED STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION 2019.210 [Confidential]



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

Cross-Defendants.


Pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2019.210, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Knight

Law Group, LLP (“Knight”) identifies the following trade secrets at issue in its claim for

misappropriation in this litigation:1


contacted Knight for representation or potential representation. This information is

contained in a highly customized database.



example, highly honed templates that focus on upfront indicators about the strength

and value of cases. In addition, Knight spends a large amount of time investigating

and analyzing which vehicles can form the basis of more profitable lemon law cases

based on the nature of their defects and then uses that information to target, through

marketing and advertising, those vehicle owners. When a potential new case comes

in, this information then helps Knight assess the value of the case.








developed through years of relationship building and learning and allows Knight to

handle a large volume of cases in an efficient manner. It includes pricing


1 Knight also maintains other trade secrets that are not listed herein and does not waive any rights with regard to their protection.



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

Dated: September 15, 2021 HUSKINSON, BROWN & HEIDENREICH, LLP

By: ___________________________ Brian Center, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant/Cross-Complainant Knight Law Group, LLP and Defendant Steve Mikhov


PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3) CCP STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I, Devin Brown, am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age o f 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 1200 Aviation Boulevard, Suite 202, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.

On September 15, 2021 I served the foregoing documents described as • KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP'S AMENDED STATEMENT PURSUANT TO CCP SECTION

2019.210on the interested parties specified below, via the form of service marked below: Mark C. Carlson, Esq., Nathan M. Keifer, Esq. CARLSON LAW GROUP, INC. 6300 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1300 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone No.: (818) 996-7800 Facsimile No.: (818) 884-4285 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Law Offices o f Michael H Rosenstein, LC.

Marshall Cole!, Esq. NEMECKCOLE 16255 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 300, Encino, CA 91436 Tel 818.788.9500 I Fax 818.501.0328 [email protected] [email protected] Attorney for Cross-Defendant Sepehr Daghighian Cross-Defendant CCA [X] (ELECTRONIC MAIL)

Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq. Quill & Arrow LLP I 0900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 [email protected]

MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC Robie & Matthai 350 S. Grand Avenue Suite 3950 Los Angeles, CA 90071 [email protected]

By transmitting the document by electronic mail to the electronic mail address as stated on the service list.

Executed on September 15, 2021, at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penaltyof perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and cmTect.

-1µ,wuDevin Brown


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 OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO ZOLA MEDIA

ROBIE & MATTHAI A Professional Corporation MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC, ESQ. (SBN 185551) GABRIELLE M. JACKSON, ESQ. (SBN 167528) 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3950 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 706-8000 Facsimile: (213) 706-9913 E-mail: [email protected]

[email protected] Attorneys for Cross-Defendant CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.




Plaintiff,

vs. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California Limited Liability Partnership, STEVE BORISLAW MIKHOV, an individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants,

CASE NO.: 20STCV19127 [Assigned to the Hon. Timothy Patrick Dillon, Dept. 73] CROSS-DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.’S OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO ZOLA MEDIA DATE: September 28, 2021 TIME: 10:00 a.m. LOCATION: First Legal Records 1235 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10001 Filing Date: May 19, 2020 FSC Date: January 24, 2022 Trial Date: February 7, 2022 Disc. C/O: January 10, 2022 Motion C/O: January 24, 2022

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP, a California limited liability partnership, Cross-Complainant, vs. HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C., a California Professional Corporation, SEPEHR DAGHIGHIAN, an individual; LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL H. ROSENSTEIN, LC, a California professional corporation; MICHAEL H. ROSENSTEIN, an individual; CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C., a California professional corporation; QUILL & ARROW, LLP, a California limited liability partnership; KEVIN Y. JACOBOSN, an individual; JONATHAN SHIRIAN, an individual; and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, Cross-Defendants.


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



PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

Sections 1985.3 and 2025.210, et seq., Cross-defendant California Consumer Attorneys,

P.C. hereby objects to the Deposition Subpoena for Production of Business Records served

by Defendant and Cross-Complainant Knight Law Group upon third party Zola Media on

the grounds that the subpoena improperly requests the production of documents that are

not relevant to any issues in this litigation, and as such are not discoverable.

OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

REQUEST NO. 1:

Any and all documents provided to You (“You” is defined as Zola Media and any

of its agents or representatives) by California Consumer Attorneys (“CCA” - defined as

CCA or any of its agents or representatives) related to marketing or advertising (including,

but not limited through SEO, internet ads, work related to CCA's website, mailers etc). for

CCA. You may omit from the production any confidential financial information, such as

banking information, as well as invoices and payment information.

OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 1:

Cross-Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it is not reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, as it seeks documents outside the

scope of the trade secret claims in this litigation as set out in Knight Law Group’s March 3,

2021 disclosure pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210.

REQUEST NO. 2:

Any and all documents created by You or for You in relation to providing

advertising or marketing services to CCA. You may omit from the production any

confidential financial information, such as banking information, as well as invoices and

payment information.

///

///


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






2021 disclosure pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. The request is also

overbroad, burdensome, and harassing, and seeks proprietary information owned by CCA.

REQUEST NO. 3:

A copy of any marketing plan, or drafts of marketing plans, created by or for CCA.






REQUEST NO. 4:

Documents sufficient to show the first date of contact between You and CCA.






REQUEST NO. 5:

Any documents that mention or refer to Knight or the Knight Law Group.

///

///

///

///

///

///


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







DATED: September ____, 2021 ROBIE & MATTHAI A Professional Corporation

By:

/s/ Marta A. Alcumbrac

MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC GABRIELLE M. JACKSON Attorneys for Cross-Defendant CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.


mercedes.mendoza

Typewritten Text

24


1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950,

4 Los Angeles, California 90071.

5 On September _2!1_, 2021 I served the foregoing document described as CROSS-6 DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, P.C.'S OBJECTION TO

DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS TO ZOLA 7 MEDIA on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy in sealed envelope(s)

addressed as follows: 8

9

10

11

12

_ _ VIA U.S. MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.

__ VIA PERSONAL SERVICE: As follows: I delivered such envelope by hand to the 13 above addressee(s).

14 _ _ VIA OVERNIGHT COURIER: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's

15

16

practice of collecting and processing overnight deliveries. The package would be deposited before the designated pickup time and marked accordingly for delivery the next business day.

_ _ VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE: As follows: I electronically served the document(s) 1 7 j described above via One Legal on the recipients designated on the attached Service List.

18 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL: the above-mentioned document was transmitted via email to

19

20

21

all Counsel of record in this matter, as reflected on the attached Service List.

VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION: As follows: I caused the above-referenced document(s) to be transmitted to the above-named person(s) at the telecopy number(s) listed above.

22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws. of the State of California that the

23 foregoing is true and correct. Executed Septer ber ~' 2021, at Los Angeles, California.

24

25

26

27

28


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


Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. v. Knight Law Group, et al. LASC Case No.: 20STCV19127

SERVICE LIST

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California Limited Liability Partnership; STEVE BORISLAV MIKHOV Roger Kirnos, Esq. Knight Law Group 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 Facsimile: (310) 552-7973 E-mail: [email protected]

ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP David Brown, Esq. Brian Center, Esq. Huskinson Brown & Heindenreich LLP 1200 Aviation Blvd, Suite 202 Redondo Beach, California 90278 Telephone: (310) 545-5459 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Carla Brown: [email protected] Devin Brown: [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF, HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. Mark C. Carlson, Esq., Nathan M. Kelfer, Esq. Carlson Law Group, Inc. 6300 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1300 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (818) 996-7800 Facsimile: (818) 884-4285 E-mail: [email protected] Lyndsay Davis: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/CROSS-DEFENDANTS Marshall Cole, Esq. Nemecek & Cole 16255 Ventura Blvd Ste 300 Encino, California 91436-2300 Telephone: (818) 788-9500 Facsimile: (818) 501-0328 E-mail: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-DEFENDANTS QUILL & ARROW Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq. Quill & Arrow LLP 10900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90024 E-mail: [email protected]



ROBIE & MATTHAI A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

Brian Center, Esq. Huskinson Brown & Heindenreich LLP 1200 Aviation Blvd, Suite 202 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 [email protected]

September 27, 2021

Via Email

Re: Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. v. Knight Law Group, LLP LASC Case No.: 20STCV19127

Dear Mr. Center:

James R. Robie (1949-2011 J

Edith R. Matthai* Kyle Kveton Natalie A. Kouyoumdjian * * Gabrielle M. Jackson Marta A. Alcumbrac Leigh P. Robie T. John Fitzgibbons • Timothy W. Bucknell Nadja Milekic

"''Certified Specia!isl, Legnl Ma!practic1.• Law

;. ;.C:en·ificd Spccialisr, Appellate Law The- Statl' Bar of California Board of legal Spl!cializa tion

Please accept this correspondence as our effort to meet and confer with you regarding your subpoena to Zola Media. As you know, the subpoena served on Zola Media requests the production of documents related to any marketing or advertising services performed by Zola for CCA, including marketing plans. The subpoena also seeks all documents that mention or refer to Knight or Knight Law Group ("KLG"). However, because none of the material sought is relevant to the claims and contentions at issue in the litigation, the subpoena is inappropriate, and must be withdrawn. In the event we cannot resolve our differences with respect to the subpoena, I will file a motion to quash or in the alternative, a motion for protective order and seek sanctions against you and your client.

First, as you are undoubtedly aware, the threshold test for discoverability is relevance; parties may not obtain discovery of information which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (C.C.P. § 2017.010.) When cross-defendants insisted that KLG identify the trade secrets it was claiming had been misappropriated, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210, KLG did so on March 3, 2021. In its disclosure statement, KLG explained that the trade secrets encompassed in its claims for misappropriation included: KLG's client list; KLG's case evaluation system; KLG's client intake protocol; and, KLG's vendor list. The disclosure did not mention anything relating to or concerning marketing or advertising.

Notably, section 2019.10 provides that, before commencing discovery relating to the trade secret, the party alleging the misappropriation must identify the trade secret with reasonable particularity. One of the purposes of the requirement that the disclosure be made before discovery commences is to assist the court in framing the appropriate scope of discovery. (Per/an Therapeutics, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1343; see also Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 826, 835 ["The trade secret designation mandated by section 2019.21 0 [ ... ] limits the scope of discovery in much the same way as the allegations of a complaint limit discovery in other types of civil actions."].) Accordingly, after your client's March 3, 2021 disclosure, all relevant discovery relating to the trade secret allegations was completed, including both written discovery and depositions. Indeed, cross-defendants sought and took the depositions ofKLG's Person Most Knowledgeable and other

350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950 I Los Angeles, California 90071 I P 213.706.8000 I F 213.706.9913 I www.romalaw.com

STRAIGHTFORWARD TO THE POINT


Brian Center, Esq. HDMNv. KLG September 27, 2021 Page 2

witnesses regarding the trade secrets as identified in the trade secret disclosure. At no time during the lengthy discovery proceedings related to KLG's alleged trade secret violations did KLG identify any trade secret violation related to marketing.

Nevertheless, on September 15, 2021 -the day before CCA filed its Motion for Summary Adjudication- your client served an "amended" disclosure statement, whjch although it contained the same categories of trade secret described above, included (for the first time) a reference to marketing and advertising based on KLG's case evaluation system. This untimely amended disclosure is patently improper and insufficient to justify the subpoena to Zola Media. As one court explained, "The defense must know enough about the claimed trade secret to permit the vital process of summary judgment to proceed. [ ... ] The defense typically will aim its summary judgment motion at the trade secret identification the plaintiff served under Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210. But it destroys the utility of the summary judgment procedure for the plaintiff to wait until after the defense has filed its summary judgment motion to announce there is a new secret the plaintiff would like to define.' (Coast Hematology-Oncology Associates Med Group, Inc. v. Long Beach Mem 'l Med Center (2020) 58 Cal.App.Sth 748, 759; see also Stutz Motor Car of Am., Inc. v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd (C.D. Cal 1995) 909 F.Supp. 1353, 1360-61 [Plaintiff estopped from litigating trade secrets other than those that were the subject of discovery between the parties].)

Thus, because your amended disclosure was untimely served, it is prejudicial and improper, and insufficient to justify the subpoena to Zola Media. We sincerely hope that these issues will be resolved without need for the court's intervention. That said, if they are not addressed, we will not hesitate to file a motion. If you would like to discuss these issues, please call me.

Very truly yours,

ROBIE & MATTHAI A Professional Corporation

Is/ Marta A. Alcumbrac

MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC MAA:nr

cc: Mark Carlson, Esq. [email protected]; [email protected] Marshall Cole, Esq. [email protected] Roger Kimes, Esq. [email protected] David Brown, Esq. [email protected] Kevin Jacobson, Esq. [email protected] Robert Schmid [email protected] Production- First Legal [email protected] 08604686-01/FR-OpConNotice

of 57

1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3950,

4 Los Angeles, California 90071.

5 On October 6, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS

6 AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF MARTA A. ALCUMBRAC on the interested

7 parties in this action by placing a true copy in sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:

8

9

VIA ELECTRONIC SERVICE: As follows: I electronically served the document(s) described above via One Legal on the recipients designated on the attached Service List.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the 1 0 foregoing is true and correct. Executed October 6, 2021, at Los Angeles, California.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

~~ NITA RUNYAN


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


Hackler Daghighian Martino & Novak, P.C. v. Knight Law Group, et al.

LASC Case No.: 20STCV19127

SERVICE LIST

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, a California

Limited Liability Partnership; STEVE

BORISLAV MIKHOV

Roger Kirnos, Esq.

Knight Law Group

10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 2500

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Telephone No..: (310) 552-2250

Facsimile No.: (310) 552-7973

Email: [email protected]

ASSOCIATED COUNSEL FOR

DEFENDANT, KNIGHT LAW GROUP,

LLP

David Brown, Esq.

Brian Center, Esq.

Huskinson Brown & Heindenreich LLP

1200 Aviation Blvd, Suite 202

Redondo Beach, CA 90278

Telephone No.: (310) 545-5459

Email: [email protected];

[email protected]

Carla Brown [email protected]

Devin Brown [email protected]

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO &

NOVAK, P.C.

Mark C. Carlson, Esq.,

Nathan M. Kelfer, Esq.

CARLSON LAW GROUP, INC.

6300 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1300

Woodland Hills, California 91367

Telephone No.: (818) 996-7800

Facsimile No.: (818) 884-4285


Lyndsay Davis <[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF/CROSS-

DEFENDANTS

Marshall Cole, Esq.

Nemecek & Cole

16255 Ventura Blvd Ste 300

Encino, CA 91436-2300

Telephone No..: (818) 788-9500

Facsimile No.: (818) 501-0328


ATTORNEYS FOR CROSS-

DEFENDANTS QUILL & ARROW

Kevin Y Jacobson, Esq.

Quill & Arrow LLP

10900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300

Los Angeles, CA 90024

[email protected]

of 57










of 57

Journal Technologies Court Portal

Make a Reservation

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. vs KNIGHT LAW GROUP, et al.

Case Number: 20STCV19127 Case Type: Civil Unlimited Category: Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not

fraud or negligence)

Date Filed: 2020-05-19 Location: Stanley Mask Courthouse- Department 73

Reservation

Case Name:

HACKLER DAGHIGHIAN MARTINO & NOVAK, P.C. vs

KNIGHT LAW GROUP, et al.

Type:

Motion for Protective Order

Filing Party:

California Consumer Attorneys, P.C., a California

professional corporation (Cross-Defendant)

Dateffime:

01/13/2022 8:30AM

Reservation ID:

220288865281

Fees

Description

Motion for Protective Order

Credit Card Percentage Fee (2.75%)

TOTAL

Payment

Amount:

$61.65

Account Number:

XXXX1036 - ------- - - - -- -- - --- '\

l!t Print Receipt + Reserve Anot her Hearing i i

Copyright© Journal Technologies, USA. All rights reserved.

Case Number:

20STCV19127

Status:

RESERVED

Location:

Stanley Mask Courthouse- Department 73

Number of Motions:

1

Confirmation Code:

CR-ULBSGBPDYPHQADGTH

Type:

American Express

Authorization:

266141

Fee

60.00

1.65

Qty

1

1

Amount

60.00

1.65

$61.65

Chat