201 Loera vs. United Parcel Services Inc

report regarding any surveillance of Plaintiff; and any investigation reports of Plaintiff. (Goncuian Decl., Exh. 1.) Defendant objected to each of these requests on various grounds, including on the grounds that the requested items are protected by the work product doctrine. Plaintiff also attached a privilege log which indicates that Plaintiff withheld “Surveillance of Plaintiff Natalie Loera at or near 3212 West Ravenswood Dr., Anaheim, CA 92804, on April 14-15, 2024.” (Goncuian Decl., Exh. 2.)

In Defendant’s opposition, counsel explains that “the surveillance was conducted specifically at the direction of defense counsel, with counsel’s guidance, at the expense of Defendants, and the strategies and information used to capture the surveillance resulted from the impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories of defense counsel. The corresponding written reports reflect counsel’s ‘Impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories’ and are therefore considered absolute work product.” (Oppn at 7:9- 14.)

In Suezaki v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 166, the Supreme Court held that surveillance video of a plaintiff in a personal injury action fell within the “qualified” work product protection. The court did not hold that surveillance footage is as a matter of law subject to discovery. (Id., at p. 178.) Rather, the court remanded the case to the trial court to exercise its discretion in determining whether or not such footage should be produced. (See id., at pp. 178-79.)

Attorney work product protection is now governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 2018.030. Under the statute, “[a] writing that reflects an attorney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (a).) Further, “[t]he work product of an attorney, other than a writing described [above], is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2018.030, subd. (b).)

Surveillance footage of Plaintiff, taken at the direction of defense counsel and with defense counsel’s guidance is subject to qualified work product protection.

Plaintiff contends that denial of an order compelling the footage will unfairly prejudice her because the footage may be enhanced, edited or distorted and not having the opportunity to examine the video prior to trial will preclude Plaintiff’s counsel from having adequate time to prepare a proper cross examination. (Mtn. at 10:10-16.) Plaintiff further contends that written surveillance reports created by

the investigator are also necessary to evaluate what editing an investigator has performed on the surveillance footage, and is necessary for Plaintiff to be able to fully evaluate whether the surveillance footage accurately captures Plaintiff on a particular day. (Mtn. at 10:17-23.)

Plaintiff’s arguments are not compelling. The same argument could be made of any evidence offered for impeachment purposes. Further, Defendant has already disclosed the date and location of the footage, and Plaintiff, as its subject, should already be aware of her own actions.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. 202 Maple Iron Grove LLC vs. Hudson, 25-01453870 Fortra Law through Steven Ernest (Counsel for MAPLE IRON GROVE LLC) seeks an order relieving it from acting as counsel of record. (ROA 103)

All the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362 have been met, and the Declaration of Attorney Steven E. Ernest appears to demonstrate good cause for granting the motion based on the allegations that there has been an irrevocable breakdown in the relationship which prevents Fortra Law from continuing to represent the client.

Thus, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel of Record filed by Fortra Law through Steven Ernest is GRANTED.

Attorney to update the proposed order (ROA 104) to delete past law and motion dates and include any new dates.

Attorney is relieved as counsel of record upon filing the proof of service of the order.

Moving attorney to give notice. 203 KHATSKO vs. OVCHAROV, 26- 01572047

Plaintiff Vitali Khatsko (“Plaintiff”) applies for right to attach orders and orders for issue of writs of attachment against defendants Dmitry Ovcharov and Zorka Impex, Inc. (together, “Defendants”).

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, an attachment may be issued only in an action on a claim or claims for money, each of which is based upon a contract, express or implied, where the total amount of the claim or claims is a fixed or readily ascertainable amount not less than five hundred dollars ($500) exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 483.010(a).) Pursuant to section 484.090(a), “[a]t the hearing, the court shall consider the showing made by the parties appearing and shall issue a right to attach order, which shall state the amount to be secured by the attachment determined by the court in accordance with Section 483.015 or 483.020, if it finds all of the following:

(1) The claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued. (2) The plaintiff has established the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based. (3) The attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery on the claim upon which the attachment is based. (4) The amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.”

Plaintiff argues he has shown a probable validity of prevailing on his causes of action for breach of written and oral contract against Ovcharov because Ovcharov’s Telegram messages requesting and confirming each advance, the Alibaba.com order confirmations, and Ovcharov’s later written acknowledgements of the debt constitute a written contract between himself and Ovcharov.

The Telegram messages upon which Plaintiff relies are submitted in a foreign language with no translation. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(g) provides: “Exhibits written in a foreign language must be accompanied by an English translation, certified under oath by a qualified interpreter.” Because the Telegram messages are not accompanied by an English translation by a qualified interpreter, they are inadmissible.

The Alibaba.com order confirmations are emails from Alibaba Customer Service to Plaintiff regarding various payments and orders. Nothing in those emails evidences the existence of any contract between Plaintiff and Ovcharov.

Exhibit 12 is a May 4, 2026 email from an attorney, Pavel Kolmogorov, on behalf of Zorka Impex in response to Plaintiff’s May 1 letter. In that letter, Mr. Kolmogorov asserts that “the obligation at issue” is that of Zorka Impex and not Ovcharov individually and that Zorka Impex “confirms that it has an outstanding financial obligation to Mr. Vitali Khatsko arising from payments made by him in January-February 2023 that were used to fund inventory purchases for Zorka Impex, Inc.’s business operations.” Mr. Kolmogorov proposed that Zorka Impex and Plaintiff enter into a formal written loan agreement to resolve the matter and avoid litigation. This letter does not establish the existence of any contract between Plaintiff and Ovcharov.

Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of any express or implied contract with Ovcharov, the application as to Ovcharov is DENIED.

The Court finds that the May 4 letter does, however, demonstrate that Zorka Impex at least impliedly promised to repay the alleged debt in the principal balance of $42,948.08