SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner(s): Tiffany Chevront for Matthew Cubeiro Via LACourtConnect
For Defendant(s): No Appearances
Other Appearance Notes: Robert C. Leiford, III Appearing Via LACourtConnect for Los
Angeles County Districts Attorney's Office Real Party in Interest, Daniel Saunders and
Constantine Z. "Dean" Pamphilis Appearing Via LACourtConnect for Konnech Inc. Non-Party

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene; Hearing on

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice; Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration; Status
Conference

The Court's tentative ruling is posted online for parties to review.

The above matters are called for hearing.

The Court has read and considered all documents filed hereto regarding the above-captioned
Motions. Counsel are given the opportunity to argue. After argument, the Court adopts its
Tentative Ruling as the Final Ruling as follows:

Non-Party Konnech Inc.’s unopposed application to permit Constantine Z.

Pamphilis to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.
Non-Party Konnech Inc.’s motion for leave to intervene as a matter of right is
granted pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B).
Non-Party Konnech Inc.’s motion for reconsideration is granted. The Court will
reconsider Petitioners’ petition to enforce subpoena duces tecum. Konnech is ordered to
file its opposition to the petition by December 21, 2023. Petitioners are ordered to file their
reply by January 11, 2024. The Court will hear the petition on Wednesday, January 17,
2024, at 8:30 am.

Non-Party Konnech Inc. (“Konnech”) applies unopposed to permit Constantine Z.

Pamphilis (“Pamphilis”) to appear pro hac vice. (Notice Pro Hac Vice, pg. 2; CRC, Rule 9.40.)
Konnech moves for leave to intervene as a matter of right in the instant matter on the
basis it has an interest relating to the property that is the subject of this action, specifically,
Minute Order Page 1 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

approximately 350 Terabytes of confidential, sensitive and proprietary business data belonging
to Konnech and entrusted to it by cities and counties across the U.S. relating to every facet of
Konnech’s business and finances—specifically including, among many other things, source code
for Konnech’s proprietary software products that form the foundation of its business
operations—that was previously seized by Respondent Los Angeles County District Attorneys’
Office (“LADA”) (“Respondent”), and which the Court has now ordered to be produced to
Petitioners. (Notice Intervene, pg. 3; C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B).) Konnech moves on the basis it is
so situated that the disposition of the subpoena at issue will undoubtedly impair or impede
Konnech’s ability to protect its confidential, sensitive, and proprietary business data, as well as
personal identifying information for current and former Konnech employees and employees of
cities and counties across the U.S., and Konnech’s interests are not adequately represented by the
original parties to this action. (Notice Intervene, pg. 3.)
Konnech moves, in the alternative, for permissive intervention on the basis Konnech has
a direct interest in this action, Konnech’s intervention will not enlarge the issues in this action,
and the reasons for Konnech’s intervention outweigh any opposition by the original
parties. (Notice Intervene, pg. 3; C.C.P. §387(d)(2); People v. ex rel. Rominger v. County of
Trinity (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 655, 660-661.)
Konnech moves for this Court to reconsider its September 25, 2023, Ruling on
Petitioners Dr. Paul C. Broun’s (“Broun”), Sheri Gilligan’s (“Gilligan”), and Voter GA’s (“Voter
GA”) (collectively, “Petitioners”) Motion for Protective Order, Motion for In Camera Inspection
and Objections to Subpoena. (Memorandum Intervene, Exh. A; C.C.P. §1008(a).)

Background
On September 25, 2023, Petitioners moved for an order compelling Non-party LADA’s
Office Custodian of Records and Evidence to comply with Petitioners’ second subpoena duces
tecum, served on LADA on March 14, 2023. The subpoena requested the production of
materials seized by the LADA on October 4, 2022, from Konnech in connection with its
investigation into Konnech and the arrest of its Chief Executive Officer, Eugene Yu.[1]
The subpoena requested LADA to produce and permit inspection and copying of:
A copy of all forensically sound evidence drives imaged from a)
computer/electronic hardware obtained from any Konnech, Inc. location or b) any
and all cloud-based services used by Konnech, including the following:

1) From the Konnech, Inc. corporate network: a. All PCAP traffic at the
network perimeter b. All images identifying ingress and egress TCP/IP source
and c. Destination IP addresses for all known ports or protocols in use in such
communications.

Minute Order Page 2 of 9

 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

2) From the Konnech, Inc. network mapping atoll, like NMAP a.

Enumerated topology of the network b. Enumerated topology of network
infrastructure, and c. Enumerated topology hosts (servers, workstations)
existing on the network, including all generated NMAP files and PDFs

3) From Konnech, Inc. data captured from all third party cloud services
company sites like Jira, Microsoft Teams, or any similar services, including
corporate administrative services.

In regards to a search warrant executed in the State of Michigan, or otherwise

gathered in relation to Case No. BA 509784, People of the State of California v.
Eugene Wei Yu (DOB: 11/01/1957).

The LA District Attorney had objected:

OBJECTION TO REQUEST NO. 1: Objection. Responding Praty objects to this
request to the extent it seeks documents and materials already previously
requested and/or covered by Propounding Party’s prior Subpoena Duces Tecum
and already responded to on December 23, 2022. Responding Party further
objects to this request on the grounds that the request is vague, ambiguous, overly
broad and burdensome and to the extent it seeks documents which are either
equally available and/or from third parties and/or are not subject to disclosure
without a court order or pursuant to statute and/or case law. Responding Party
further objects to the extent it seeks documents which are not relevant to the
issues in the case and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Responding Party also objects to the extent it invades the privacy rights of third
parties protected by State Constitution and/or specific protective orders issued by
the Court. Responding Party further objects to the extent the request seeks
documents not subject to disclosure including but not limited to those protected
by the attorney-client privilege and/or Attorney Work product doctrine (CCP
2018.020 and 2018.030); the Official Information privilege (Evid. Code 1040);
documents exempt from disclosure (including but not limited to GC 6254, PC
851.8, PC 1203.45, Evid. Code 1017, 1560(d), PC 1534(a), 11105, and Central
Valley Ch.7th Step Foundation v. Younger (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 145 and Loder
vs. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859); Court transcripts (GC 69954);
Criminal history documents (PC 11140 et seq. and 13300 et seq.); Probation
Reports (PC 1203.05); Grand Jury documents (PC 891 and 924 et seq.); Computer
information (AG Op.#06-203); Charge Evaluation Worksheets (AG Op.#06-203);
Medical records (HIPPA and PC 1543 and WIC 5328); Juvenile court records
Minute Order Page 3 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

(WIC 827 et seq); and/or Items for which Responding Party is not the custodian
of records (Cooley vs. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1041) etc.
Lastly, Responding Party objects to this request on the grounds that the
underlying criminal matter and related criminal matters are currently pending
and/or still under investigation and therefore the need for maintaining the
confidentiality of certain records and information outweighs the benefits of
disclosure at this time. (See Cal. Evid. Code §1040(b)(2) and County of Orange
v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal. App.4th 759.

After review of the motion to enforce compliance with the subpoena, LADA’s
opposition, and Petitioner’s reply, the Court overruled LADA’s objections and ordered it to
comply with the subpoena.
On October 5, 2023, Konnech, Inc. applied ex parte for an order shortening time for
hearing on its motion to intervene and for hearing on an application to admit Constantine
Pamphilis pro hac vice. The Court granted the application and set the hearing on the motions to
intervene and on the application to admit Constantine Pamphilis pro hac vice on December 7,
2023. The Court also stayed its order of September 25, 2023, until December 15, 2023.

A. Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

C.R.C., Rule 9.40(d) provides that an application to be admitted pro hac vice must state
the following:
(1) The applicant’s residence and office address;
(2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of
admission;
(3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts;
(4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;
(5) The title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to
appear as counsel¿pro hac vice¿in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each
application, and whether or not it was granted; and
(6) The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of
California who is attorney of record.
C.R.C., Rule 9.40(e) provides as follows, “[a]n applicant for permission to appear as
counsel pro hac vice under this rule must pay a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar
of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State
Bar.”
The instant application provides the information required by C.R.C., Rule
9.40(d). However, Pamphilis failed to submit proof the $50.00 fee was paid to the State Bar of
California because he failed to file the Declaration of Daniel A. Saunders with his application,
Minute Order Page 4 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

which the Court assumes was intended to demonstrate payment to the State Bar. (C.R.C., Rule
9.40(e); see Decl. of Pamphilis ¶11.) The Declaration of Matthew Manacek alleges on
information and belief that the required application fees and been paid without evidence to
support such payment. (Decl. of Manacek ¶3.) Further, Pamphilis and Manacek failed to submit
proof of service by mail on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office the of verified
application and notice of the hearing in accordance with C.C.P. §1013a. (C.R.C., Rule
9.40(c)(1); see Decl. of Manacek ¶2 and pg. 3 (Proof of Service); Decl. of Pamphilis ¶11 and pg.
5 (Proof of Service).)
Pamphilis has provided this Court with his Texas bar number (Bar. No. 00794419).
While this requirement is not enumerated in C.R.C., Rule 9.40, the Court would need this
number to enter Pamphilis’ application into the Court’s system.
Accordingly, Defendant’s unopposed motion for an order admitting Constatine Z.
Pamphilis to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.

B. Motion for Leave to Intervene

Request for Judicial Notice
Petitioners’ 11/22/23 request for judicial notice is denied as to (1) the factual allegations
and statements made by and on behalf of Real Party in Interest Konnech, Inc. by its CEO Eugene
Yu contained within the following newspaper article: Stuart A. Thompson, Election Firm Knew
Data Had Been Sent to China, Prosecutors Say, NY Times (October 13, 2023),
<https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/13/technology/konnech-eugene-yu-election-data.html>, (last
accessed November 21, 2023).
Petitioners’ 11/22/23 request for judicial notice is granted as to (2) Konnech, Inc. v. True
the Vote, Inc., et al., S.D. Tex. Case No. 4:22-cv-03096: Parties’ Stipulation and Dismissal filed
on April 19, 2023 (P-RJN, Exh. B); (3) Konnech, Inc. v. True the Vote, Inc., et al., S.D. Tex.
Case No. 4:22-cv-03096: Defendant True the Vote’s Opposed Motion for Appointment of
Special Master, and Exhibit B to that Motion (P-RJN, Exh. C); and (4) Georgia Code Annotated
§9-11-26 (P-RJN, Exh. D). However, the Court does not consider the truth of the matters
asserted.
Konnech’s 11/30/23 request for judicial notice of the statements made by Executive
Director Keisha Smith, and various board members of the DeKalb County Board of Registration
& Elections, during an October 10, 2022 special meeting concerning changes to its contract with
Konnech and scope of same, available on the DeKalb County government website,
at https://www.dekalbcountyga.gov/news/dekalb-bre-votes-terminate-access-poll-worker-data-
konnech-inc, is granted. (K-RJN, Exh. A.) However, the Court does not consider the truth of
the matters asserted.

Legal Standard
Minute Order Page 5 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

Pursuant to C.C.P. §387(b), “an intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an
intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of
the following: (1) Joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint [;] (2) Uniting
with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff [; or] (3) Demanding anything adverse to
both a plaintiff and a defendant.” (C.C.P. §387(b).)
Pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d),
(d)(1) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in
the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:

(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to

intervene.

(B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to

the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that
person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or
impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that
person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the
existing parties.

(2) The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the
action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.

(C.C.P. §387(d).)

Discussion
The Court grants Konnech’s motion for leave to intervene pursuant to C.C.P.
§387(d)(1)(B). Konnech has an interest in the data at issue in this matter and its ability to protect
that data has been impaired or impeded by this Court’s September 25, 2023 Ruling. Therefore,
Konnech is entitled to mandatory intervention so long as its rights are not adequately protected
by existing parties.
As a preliminary matter, the instant motion is timely. (Noya v. A.W. Coulter
Trucking (2006)143 Cal. App. 4th 838, 842 [stating there is no statutory time limit for filing a
motion to intervene].) The general rule is that “a right to intervene should be asserted within a
reasonable time and that the intervenor must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after
knowledge of the suit.” (Allen v. California Water & Telephone Co. (1947) 31 Cal.2d 104,
108.) Intervention is timely unless any party opposing intervention can show prejudice from any
delay attributable to the filing of the motion to intervene. (Truck Insurance Exchange v.
Minute Order Page 6 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 351 [stating motion to intervene filed in lawsuit that
had been pending for four years was timely because parties to that action had shown no prejudice
other than being required to prove their case].) Here, Konnech did not learn of this Court’s
September 25, 2023 Ruling until October 2, 2023, and was not provided notice of the Ruling by
Petitioners or the Respondent, the Los Angeles District Attorneys’ Office (“LADA”)
(“Respondent”). (Decl. of Yu ¶¶7-8.) Konnech filed the instant motion within three days of
learning of the existence of this action, which was asserted within a reasonable time and without
unreasonable delay. (Allen, 31 Cal.2d at pg. 108.)
Konnech demonstrates an interest relating to the property that is the subject of this action.
The Subpoena at issue in the Court’s September 25, 2023 Ruling seeks production of “a copy of
all forensically sound evidence imaged from a) computer/electronic hardware obtained from any
Konnech, Inc. location or b) any and all cloud-based services used by Konnech.” (Petitioners
Subpoena SS, pg. 2.) Because the LADA seized all Konnech computer and electronic
equipment—including 12 computer servers, 14 hard drives, laptops, desktops, workstations, and
firewall equipment—the forensic copies made from this equipment necessarily encompasses 350
Terabytes of data comprising every facet of Konnech’s business operations. (Decl. of Yu ¶¶5,
14.) This includes sensitive source code for Konnech’s proprietary software products, highly
sensitive financial information about the company, indisputably privileged communications
between Konnech and its attorneys, confidential data entrusted to Konnech by its non-party
clients and confidential personal identifiable information (“PII”) for thousands of non-party poll
workers across the country. (Decl. of Yu ¶¶5, 14-17.) This Court’s September 25, 2023 Ruling
compels production of all of this data to Petitioners. (9/23/23 Minute Order, pg. 4.)
The data ordered produced in the Subpoena belongs to Konnech, which creates an
interest in the property that is the subject of this action. Konnech has a clear and substantial
interest in preventing its highly confidential and sensitive source code, business and financial
information from being disclosed to third parties and potential competitors without its knowledge
or consent.
This Court’s September 25, 2023, Ruling compelling production of that data
necessarily impairs Konnech’s ability to protect its interests in preventing disclosure of that data
to third parties, including Petitioners. The LADA has not adequately protected Konnech’s rights
in this matter. This is demonstrated by the fact the LADA never notified Konnech that its data
was the subject of a subpoena, let alone that this action had been filed, that the parties briefed a
motion to compel production, or that this Court issued its September 25, 2023, Ruling
compelling production. (See Decl. of Yu ¶8.) In opposing Petitioners’ petition, the LADA made
no attempt to meet its burden to demonstrate the items in Petitioners’ Subpoena were acquired in
confidence and that disclosure of such information would be “against the public
interest.” (9/25/23 Minute Order, pg. 4.) Further, LADA made no attempt to narrowly tailor the
requested production or request this Court issue a protective order to govern the production of
Minute Order Page 7 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

Konnech’s data.
Accordingly, Konnech is entitled to mandatory intervention pursuant to C.C.P.
§387(d)(1)(B).

Conclusion
Konnech’s motion for leave to intervene is granted. Konnech is granted leave to
intervene as a matter of right pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B).
Moving Party to give notice.

C. Motion for Reconsideration

Legal Standard
C.C.P. §1008(a) “requires that a motion for reconsideration be based on new or different
facts, circumstances, or law. A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory
explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (See C.C.P.
§1008(a); New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.)

Discussion
Konnech met its burden to demonstrate the instant motion is based on new or different
circumstances, and a satisfactory explanation of its failure to produce the evidence supporting
this motion at an earlier time. Specifically, Konnech demonstrated that it was not provided any
notice of this action, and as a result, neither Konnech nor any of its customers—whose data
Konnech maintains in confidence and which was included within the 350 Terabytes of data
contained on the Konnech Property that the LADA seized—were ever provided with any
opportunity to object to the subpoena or offer any evidence to oppose Petitioners’ Petition, which
this Court granted on September 25, 2023. (Decl. of Yu ¶8.)
Further, Konnech presents the following facts not previously before the Court:
(1) Konnech had no contract in Georgia prior to September 9, 2022, and that contract
(with DeKalb County) was delayed and Konnech did not handle any DeKalb County
poll worker data until 2023, meaning that no Georgia-related data was on any
Konnech server seized by the LA DA in October 2022. (Decl. of Yu ¶11).
(2) Konnech has never received or stored any voter registration identification
information from any customer whatsoever. (Decl. of Yu ¶12).
(3) Konnech has never had software for a pollbook, and has never been affiliated with
KnowInk or Votem’s registration business. (Decl. of Yu ¶13).
(4) The Order requires the production of 350 Terabytes of highly sensitive
confidential, proprietary, and privileged information, including (1) the source code
and proprietary information about Konnech’s software products; (2) highly sensitive
financial information about the company; (3) confidential data entrusted to Konnech
Minute Order Page 8 of 9
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 71

23STCP01914 December 7, 2023

DR. PAUL C. BROUN, et al. vs STATE OF GEORGIA 8:30 AM

Judge: Honorable Daniel M. Crowley CSR: None

Judicial Assistant: A. Danelian ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: D. Major Deputy Sheriff: None

by cities and counties across the country, the disclosure of which would cause
competitive harm to Konnech and could be used to illegally access the files that cities
and counties have created using Konnech software; and (4) literally every aspect of
Konnech’s business dating back to its inception in 2006. (Decl. of Yu ¶¶5, 14).
(5) The Order requires the production of personal identifying information of poll
workers unrelated to Georgia (including LA County poll workers) that Konnech
maintains as confidential, as well as the personal identifying information of Mr. Yu
and current and former Konnech employees. (Decl. of Yu ¶15).
(6) The Order requires the production of attorney-client and work product privileged
communications between Konnech and its attorneys, including communications
related to Konnech’s lawsuit against the Election Deniers, as well as various other
business matters that Konnech’s lawyers routinely handle—none of which Konnech
has waived privilege to. (Decl. of Yu ¶16).
Accordingly, this Court grants Konnech’s motion for reconsideration.

Conclusion
Konnech’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 25, 2023 Ruling on
Petitioners’ petition to enforce subpoena duces tecum is granted.
Konnech is ordered to file its opposition to the petition by December 21,
2023. Petitioners are ordered to file their reply by January 11, 2024. The Court will hear the
petition on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, at 8:30 am.

[1] According to Konnech, Inc., charges against Mr. Yu were dropped on November 9, 2022.

On the Court's own motion, the Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice scheduled for
12/07/2023, and Status Conference scheduled for 12/07/2023 are continued to 01/17/2024 at
08:30 AM in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Hearing on Petition to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum is scheduled for 01/17/2024 at 08:30 AM
in Department 71 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

The Court orders the case stayed 01/24/2024.

Notice is waived.

Minute Order Page 9 of 9