Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 24STCV14858, Date: 2024-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Hearing Date: September 9, 2024

Case Name: Burgett v. Shadow Wolf Energy, LLC, et al.

Case No.: 23STCV21735

Matter: Motions to Compel Further Responses (4x)

Moving Party: Plaintiff Tom Burgett

Responding Party: Defendants Armen Nahabedian and Vahagn Nahabedian

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motions directed at Vahagn are granted in part.

The Motions directed at Armen are granted.

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 employment action.  Plaintiff Tom Burgett now seeks to compel further responses to his requests for production, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, from Defendants Armen Nahabedian and Vahagn Nahabedian.

1. Production

For Vahagn, RFP nos. 2 and 40 are at issue.

For Armen, RFP no. 40 is at issue.

RFP no. 2 states, “All communications about the terms of YOUR employment agreement with SHADOW WOLF ENERGY, LLC.”

Vahagn responded with objections.

Plaintiff contends that he and “Defendant Vahagn Nahabedian worked for Defendant Shadow Wolf Energy (SWE). Their employment agreements are nearly identical. The agreements had complex cryptic language about pay incentives and compensations triggered by a change in control. Vahagn Nahabedian and Defendant Armen Nahabedian were executives at SWE [ ]. Armen Nahabedian was an owner of SWE. The language of both contracts was drafted by the Nahabedians. Vahagan Nahabedian sued SWE alleging a breach of his employment agreement and that payments were due to him because of a change in control (triggered by a buyout). As a result, Vahagn and Armen likely have information about events that triggered the change in control, payments due under the incentive, and change in control clauses, and how those amounts should be calculated. When viewed in this light, it's easy to see how the information about Vahagan Nahabedian's claims is highly probative of Plaintiff Burgett's breach of contract and damages claims.”

Plaintiff has shown that the information sought is relevant to his damages for his claims for breach of contract and/or breach of the implied covenant.  Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendants further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by depriving Plaintiff of his salary, bonuses, and other employment benefits as required under his employment agreement.”  This request, however, will be temporally narrowed to October 2021 until the present.   Further, Vahagn need only provide communications relating to the change of control and incentive clauses and resulting payouts.  

RFP no. 40 states, “All DOCUMENTS and ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION which support the affirmative defenses set forth in YOUR Answer to PLAINTIFF’S Complaint in this matter.”

Both Defendants objected.  The objections mostly lack merit.  A Further response will be required.

The Motion to Compel directed at Vahagn is granted in part as set forth herein.

The Motion to Compel directed at Armen is granted.  

Further responses are to be provided within 30 days. 

2. Special Interrogatories

For Armen, SI nos. 2-8, 11-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are at issue. 

For Vahagn, SI nos. 2-9 and 11-22 are at issue.

The SIs primarily relate to buyouts and the Defendants’ compensation. Defendants asserted objections.

As discussed above, the objections lack merit and the information sought is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for damages.  Further responses are required.  The only exceptions are for Vahagn as follows:

1. response to SI no. 8, which was sufficient: “Defendant did not receive recorded or unrecorded overriding royalty at Canal Oilfield in Kern County, California.”

2. SI no. 9—seeking separation reasons—violates privacy rights and is overbroad.  No further response is required.

3. SI no. 20, which seeks information as to breaches of Defendant’s employment agreement, is also overbroad.  

In sum, the Motion as to Armen is granted.

The Motion as to Vahagn is granted in part (granted, except as to SI nos. 8, 9, and 20).

Further responses will be required within 30 days.

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.