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

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 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, vs. Plaintiff, 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 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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

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

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 (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: unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com, 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: jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com, 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 - 5 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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: unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com, covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date. - 6 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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: jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com, 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 considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. 2017.010. As such, Mr. RAMIREZ hereby 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 - 7 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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 unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com and jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com. 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, - 8 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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). - 9 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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). - 10 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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: unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com, covering the period 1-1-2015 to present date. 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 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: jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com, covering the period 1-1-2015 to the present date. 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 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. 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 SPRINT CORPORATION does 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. - 11 - MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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 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, vs. Plaintiff, 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 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 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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: unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com. Factual and Legal Reasons For Motion to Quash: 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: unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com, 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. 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. - 2 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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 unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com and jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com. 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. 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. 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). - 3 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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. /// /// 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: jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com Factual and Legal Reasons For Motion to Quash: 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 YAHOO! Subpoena requests all emails, photos and attachments of ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ and JAAS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT LLC., including but not limited to EMAIL ACCOUNT: jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com, 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. - 4 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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 unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com and jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com. 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. 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. 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 - 5 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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). 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. 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. Factual and Legal Reasons For Motion to Quash: 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. 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. - 6 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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 considered to lead to admissible evidence. Code Civ. Proc. 2017.010. As such, Mr. RAMIREZ hereby requests that this court quash the AT&T Subpoena in its entirety. 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 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 - 7 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 information to Plaintiff s Counsel, and prohibiting Plaintiff s Counsel from disclosing this information 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 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. Factual and Legal Reasons For Motion to Quash: 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. 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 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 - 8 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 communications have no 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 AT&T Subpoena in its entirety. 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 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. 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 - 9 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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 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. Factual and Legal Reasons For Motion to Quash: 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 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. - 10 - SEPARATE STATEMENT OF ISSUES REGARDING MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION SUBPOENAS FOR BUSINESS RECORDS.

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

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 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, vs. Plaintiff, 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 DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS [Code Civ. Proc. 1987.1.] I, ROBERT CHRISTOPHER RAMIREZ, declare as follows: Date: June 23, 2016 Time: 1:30 p.m. Department: C33 Complaint Filed: October 20, 2015 Trial Date: November 7, 2016 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 - DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

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. 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: unitedhotelliquidators@gmail.com, 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: jaasbusinessdevelopment@yahoo.com, 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., - 2 - DECLARATION OF ROBERT RAMIREZ IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO QUASH OR MODIFY DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF BUSINESS RECORDS

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E