Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 22STCV28937, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: February 24, 2023

Case Name: Zarabian v. Willwerth, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV29052

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (6x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Babak Zarabian 

Responding Party: (1) Defendant Dan Kohanarieh

(2) Defendant Saeid Steve Amanpour

(3) Defendant Zanna USA, Inc.

(4) Defendant Zanna USA Holdings, Inc.

(5) Defendant Glenn Willwerth

(6) Unopposed (Zanna USA Holdings 2SB, Inc.)

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion directed at Zanna USA Holdings, Inc. is denied.

The Motion directed at Zanna USA Holdings 2SB, Inc. is granted.

The Motions directed at Dan Kohanarieh, Saeid Steve Amanpour, 

Zanna USA, Inc., and Glenn Willwerth are granted in part.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly 

encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This is an action in which Plaintiff Babak Zarabian alleges the Defendants cut him out of a partnership deal relating to the “Zanna” family of corporate entities.    

Plaintiff seeks to compel further responses to his requests for production, set one, from Defendants Dan Kohanarieh, Saeid Steve Amanpour, Zanna USA, Inc., Zanna USA Holdings, Inc., Zanna USA Holdings 2SB, Inc., and Glenn Willwerth.

In June 2022, the Court ordered further responses for the subject discovery, ultimately ruling that “Defendants should either (1) produce responsive documents or (2) indicate where such documents are.”

1. Zanna USA Holdings 2SB, Inc.

Zanna USA Holdings 2SB, Inc. did not provide any further responses, despite the Court’s prior orders.  

The unopposed Motion as to the above Defendant is granted.  Further responses are to be provided within twenty days.  The Court awards reduced sanctions in the amount of $1,500.

2. Zanna USA Holdings, Inc.

  Zanna USA Holdings, Inc. has indicated that it doesn’t have any agreements or communications relating to the Defendants or the transactions at issue.  The contention seems to be that this entity was not in existence until 2020 and that it has not engaged in business since. 

Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.230 states, “A representation of inability to comply with the particular demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party. The statement shall set forth the name and address of any natural person or organization known or believed by that party to have possession, custody, or control of that item or category of item.”

After further details as to the date of this Defendant’s existence and its lack of activity, the Court finds that the responses are technically code-compliant.  The Motion is denied as to the above Defendant.  

The Court respectfully declines to award sanctions. 

3. Dan Kohanarieh, Saeid Steve Amanpour, Zanna USA, Inc., and Glenn Willwerth

Defendants Dan Kohanarieh, Saeid Steve Amanpour, Zanna USA, Inc., and Glenn Willwerth have responded that they cannot comply because (a) no such documents exist to the extent “DEFENDANTS ZANNA USA HOLDINGS, INC., ZANNA USA 2SB HOLDINGS, INC., ZANNA USA 5 HOLDINGS, INC., ZANNA USA 3 HOLDINGS, and ZANNA USA HOLDINGS, INC.” were not established until 2020 and have not done any business since their inception (plus a reference to other entities having responsive documents) and/or (b) as to the remaining Defendants, “documents have never existed, or have never been, or is no longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the Responding Party” and that these Defendants might have responsive documents.  

Zanna USA, Inc. also asserted a number of objections, for example, as to relevance, burden, privacy, etc.  These objections are overruled, and further responses are to be provided.

The Motions are denied as to all requests specifically concerning “ZANNA” documents or matters because “ZANNA” is apparently defined to exclude Zanna USA, Inc., such that it would make sense that there are no responsive documents, as the entities at issue are purportedly inactive in terms of business.

When response (b) (described above) was provided and the request does not pertain specifically to “ZANNA” issues, Defendants failed to specify which factual scenario applies to the lack of documents.  The Court will not allow Defendants to generally allege in the alternative that the documents either never existed or that they are no longer in their possession.  Defendants should know whether such documents ever existed in the first place.

Also, when only response (a) (described above) was provided and “ZANNA” matters were not specifically requested, Defendants failed to explain why there are no other responsive documents unrelated to the inactive entities.  

The Motions are granted in part as to the above Defendants.  Further responses—   —only as described to be deficient above—are to be provided within twenty days. 

The Court declines to award sanctions.

Moving party to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear by LACourtConnect rather than in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic.