Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case 22CHCV00770 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV00770, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00770 Hearing Date: May 2, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 5/2/23

Case #22CHCV00770

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 1/12/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Gohar Khachatryan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-12. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,220.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

This action arises out of an alleged breach of an oral agreement to operate a childcare business. Plaintiffs Armen Sefyan and Annie Khostegyan (Plaintiffs) contend that on or about 12/1/18 Defendants Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) and Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) (collectively, Defendants) entered into an oral agreement with Plaintiffs to be partners in a childcare business to be operated by Defendants at property owned by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants breached the agreement in or around April of 2022 by unilaterally moving the childcare business to a property Defendants had just purchased and claiming the business belonged solely to Defendants.

On 9/19/22, Plaintiffs filed the original complaint against Defendants for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (5) Embezzlement, (6) Conspiracy to Commit Embezzlement, (7) Conversion of Funds, (8) Constructive Trust, (9) Misappropriation of Funds, (10) Unjust Enrichment, (11) Quiet Title, (12) Property Damage, (13) Punitive Damages and (14) Breach of Contract – Residential Lease.

On 12/6/22, a First Amended Complaint was filed by Plaintiff Armen Sefyan, only, against Defendants and Hayk Artashyan for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Fraud, (3) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (4) Embezzlement, (5) Misappropriation of Funds, (6) Quiet Title, (7) Negligence and (8) Breach of Contract – Residential Lease. On 12/21/22, Defendants filed motions to quash service of summons. On 4/7/23, Khostegyan was added back as a Plaintiff. (See 4/7/23 Minute Order).

On 10/25/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with Special Interrogatories, by mail, making responses due on or before 11/30/22. (See Sefyan Decl., Ex.1); CCP 2030.260(a). Defendants failed to serve responses by 11/30/22. (Sefyan Decl.). On 12/12/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter requesting responses by 12/27/22. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.2). On 12/14/22, Defendant served responses which contained only objections. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.3). Plaintiff found the objections to be without merit. (Sefyan Decl.). Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to resolve the discovery dispute. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.4-8, 10-11). However, further responses were served on 12/30/22, which reiterated the prior objections and also provided additional information in response to some of the interrogatories. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.9).

On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-12. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,220.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 3/16/23. On 2/10/23, the hearing on this motion was rescheduled to 3/15/23, along with other motions to compel further responses. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order). Khachatryan opposed the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition.

Due to issues as to whether Khachatryan had been properly served with the summons and First Amended Complaint in this matter, the 3/15/23 hearing on the motion was continued to 5/2/23, after Khachatryan’s motion to quash service was heard. (See 3/15/23 Minute Order). On 4/17/23, Khachatryan’s motion to quash service of summons and amended complaint was denied. (See 4/17/23 Minute Order).

ANALYSIS

Khachatryan’s arguments regarding the discovery being improper and/or premature because the service of the summons and First Amended Complaint were purportedly improper are now moot. As noted above, on 4/17/23, the Court found that Khachatryan was properly served with the summons and First Amended Complaint and denied her motion to quash same. (See 4/17/23 Minute Order). Similarly, Khachatryan’s argument that the discovery was somehow improper because it was served before the First Amended Complaint was filed is without merit. However, the Court finds that Khachatryan did not waive all objections due to the untimeliness of her responses because of the dispute regarding whether the summons and First Amended Complaint were properly served.

The Court finds that there were adequate meet and confer efforts before the filing of this motion. The supplemental responses were substantially similar to the original responses. Further, the Court finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicially economy to resolve this discovery dispute at this time. Khachatryan has objected to and failed to provide substantive responses to all of the interrogatories at issue. Therefore, the Court will address each of the Special Interrogatories at issue in the motion:

Special Interrogatory 1 asks Khachatryan to identify all current and former employees of Khachatryan Family Child Center (KFCC). Since KFCC and its ownership are at issue in this action, the interrogatory seeks information relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. See CCP 2017.010. The Court notes that Plaintiffs do not define the term “identify” with regard to individuals in this interrogatory. Therefore, Khachatryan is ordered to provide a further response by providing the first and last name of all current and former employees of KFCC.

With regard to each current and/or former employee of KFCC, Special Interrogatory 2 seeks each employee's name, address, telephone number, date employment started at KFCC, date employment at KFCC ended, reason for termination, salary amount and terms, date and amount of each payment made to the employee, number of hours worked, duties, income tax documents, including but not limited to IRS 1099 forms and IRS W-2 forms. While certain of the information requested may be discoverable, the interrogatory is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of third parties.

Special Interrogatory 3 asks Khachatryan to identify each child who was ever enrolled at KFCC, including former and current children, using their first name and last name initials only for all minors. As with Special Interrogatory 1, the Court finds that the information is relevant to the litigation and does not impermissibly invade the privacy rights of third parties.

Special Interrogatory 4 asks Khachatryan to state, separately, for each current and/or former child enrolled at KFCC, the child's first and last name initials, the child's parents full names for both parents, the parents’ home address, the parents’ telephone number, the date enrollment started at KFCC, the date enrollment ended at KFCC, the date and amount of each payment received for each child to attend KFCC, from any source; and terms of any agreements for enrollment, number of hours per week the child regularly attended KFCC, date and amount of each payment paid for each child to attend KFCC, and reason for said payment. As with Special Interrogatory 2, while certain of the information requested may be discoverable, as stated, the interrogatory is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of third parties.

Special Interrogatory 5 asks Khachatryan to “IDENTFY any and all oral or written agreements between GOHAR KHACHATRYAN (individually or jointly with anyone else), and ARMEN SEFYAN and/or ANNIE KHOSTEGYAN, jointly or individually.” The information is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, is discoverable and does not invade any privacy rights.

With regard to each oral or written agreement between Khachatryan, individually or jointly with anyone else, and Plaintiffs, jointly or individually, Special Interrogatory 6 asks Khachatryan to “state, separately for each agreement, the material terms of said agreement, & names and addresses of all individuals who are party to said agreement.” The Court also finds that this interrogatory seeks information that is relevant to the subject matter of this action, is discoverable and does not invade any privacy rights.

Special Interrogatory 7 asks Khachatryan to identify any and all payments she has made to Plaintiffs, jointly or individually, the date and amount of said payments, how the amount of payment was calculated, and the reason for making the payment. Again, the Court finds that the information is relevant to the subject matter of this action, is discoverable and does not invade any privacy rights.

Special Interrogatory 8 asks Khachatryan to identify “any and all loans, grants, or any type of payment received from any government or non-government entity on behalf of GOHAR KHACHATRYAN and/or KFCC, including but not limited to, Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (hereinafter "EIDL"), Covid-19 Paycheck Protection Program (hereinafter "PPP"), and/or Covid-19 Rent Relief Program (hereinafter "RRP").” The interrogatory is overbroad as it not limited in time and seeks information regarding loans, grants or any type of payment received from any government or non-government entity on behalf of Khachatryan “and/or” KFCC which could include information that has nothing to do with the issues in this action (i.e., as worded this interrogatory could include information regarding education loans/grants Khachatryan received years ago; loans/grants Khachatryan received at any time which are completely unrelated to KFCC).

Special Interrogatory 9 asks Khachatryan to state, separately, for each loan, grant, or any type of payment she received from any government or non-government entity, on her behalf and/or on behalf of KFCC, the payment amount, date payment was received, source of payment and reason for each payment. As with Special Interrogatory 8, the Court finds that this question is impermissibly overbroad in time and scope.

Special Interrogatory 10 asks Khachatryan to identify each and every source of income for any and all payments made as initial deposit and/or as down payment for the purchase of the property located at 11226 Woodley Ave, Granada Hills Area (Los Angeles), CA 91344. The Court also finds that as stated this interrogatory is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of Khachatryan and possibly third-parties.

Special Interrogatory 11 asks Khachatryan to identify any and all bank accounts or accounts at any financial institution, in her name (individually or jointly with anyone else), and/or KFCC, the name of said bank or institution, address, telephone number, account numbers of each account, and current balance of each account. As stated, this interrogatory is overbroad and invades Khachatryan’s and possibly third-parties’ privacy rights.

Special Interrogatory 12 asks Khachatryan to identify all payments she made to Armen Artashyan (her husband), Hyak Artashyan (her son) and/or Davit Artashyan (her son) as employees, independent contracts, or agents, of KFCC, or for any work done for YOU and/or KFCC, state date and amount of each payment, name of recipient, and reason for each payment. The information is relevant to the subject matter of this action, may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and does not unduly invade any party or third-parties privacy rights.

Because neither party has been entirely successful on the motion, the Court finds that neither party is entitled to sanctions. Even if Plaintiffs had fully prevailed on the motion, as noted in prior rulings, this Court finds that Plaintiffs cannot recover attorney’s fees as sanctions because Plaintiff Armen Sefyan, an attorney is representing himself and his wife in this action. See Nissim Argaman (1999) 73 CA4th 1173, 1177-1180; Trope (1995) 11 C4th 274, 289, 292.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied as to Special Interrogatories 2, 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and granted as to Special Interrogatories 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 12. Further responses, where ordered, are due within 20 days.

Both Khachatryan’s and Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.

Dept. F47

Date: 5/2/23

Case #22CHCV00770

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Special Interrogatories, Set 1)

Motion filed on 1/12/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Armen Artashyan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-7. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,940.00 against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Special Interrogatories, Set 1, numbers 1-7. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,940.00 against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau. The motion was originally scheduled for hearing on 3/17/23. On 2/10/23, the hearing on this motion was rescheduled to 3/15/23, along with other motions to compel further responses. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order). Artashyan opposed the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition.

Due to issues as to whether Artashyan had been properly served with the summons and First Amended Complaint in this matter, the 3/15/23 hearing on the motion was continued to 5/2/23, after Artashyan’s motion to quash service was heard. (See 3/15/23 Minute Order). On 4/18/23, Artashyan’s motion to quash service of summons and amended complaint was denied. (See 4/18/23 Minute Order).

ANALYSIS

Artashyan’s arguments regarding the discovery being improper and/or premature because the service of the summons and First Amended Complaint were purportedly improper are now moot. As noted above, on 4/18/23, the Court found that Artashyan was properly served with the summons and First Amended Complaint and denied his motion to quash same. (See 4/18/23 Minute Order). Similarly, Artashyan’s argument that the discovery was somehow improper because it was served before the First Amended Complaint was filed is without merit. However, the Court finds that Artashyan did not waive all objections due to the untimeliness of his responses because of the dispute regarding whether the summons and First Amended Complaint were properly served.

The Court finds that there were adequate meet and confer efforts before the filing of this motion. The supplemental responses were substantially similar to the original responses. Further, the Court finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicially economy to resolve this discovery dispute at this time. Artashyan has objected to and failed to provide substantive responses to all of the interrogatories at issue. Therefore, the Court will address each of the Special Interrogatories at issue in the motion:

Special Interrogatory 1 asks Artashyan to “IDENTFY… any and all oral or written agreements between ARMEN ARTASHYAN (individually or jointly with anyone else), and ARMEN SEFYAN and/or ANNIE KHOSTEGYAN, jointly or individually.” The information is relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, is discoverable and does not invade any privacy rights.

With regard to each oral or written agreement between Artashyan, individually or jointly with anyone else, and Plaintiffs, jointly or individually, Special Interrogatory 2 asks Artashyan to “state, separately for each agreement, the material terms of said agreement, & names and addresses of all individuals who are party to said agreement.” The Court also finds that this interrogatory seeks information that is relevant to the subject matter of this action, is discoverable and does not invade any privacy rights.

Special Interrogatory 3 asks Artashyan to identify any and all payments he has made to Plaintiffs, jointly or individually, the date and amount of said payments, how the amount of payment was calculated, and the reason for making the payment. Again, the Court finds that the information is relevant to the subject matter of this action, is discoverable and does not invade any privacy rights.

Special Interrogatory 4 asks Artashyan to identify “any and all loans, grants, or any type of payment received from any government or non-government entity on behalf of ARMEN ARTASHYAN, including but not limited to, Covid-19 Economic Injury Disaster Loan (hereinafter "EIDL"), Covid-19 Paycheck Protection Program (hereinafter "PPP"), and/or Covid-19 Rent Relief Program (hereinafter "RRP").” The interrogatory is overbroad as it not limited in time and seeks information regarding loans, grants or any type of payment received from any government or non-government entity on behalf of Artashyan which could include information that has nothing to do with the issues in this action (i.e., as worded this interrogatory could include information regarding education loans/grants Artashyan received years ago; loans/grants Artashyan received at any time which are completely unrelated to the issues in this case).

Special Interrogatory 5 asks Artashyan to state separately for each loan, grant, or any type of payment he received from any government or non-government entity, on his behalf, the payment amount, date payment was received, source of payment and reason for each payment. As with Special Interrogatory 4, the Court finds that this question is impermissibly overbroad in time and scope.

Special Interrogatory 6 asks Artashyan to identify each and every source of income for any and all payments made as initial deposit and/or as down payment for the purchase of the property located at 11226 Woodley Ave, Granada Hills Area (Los Angeles), CA 91344. The Court also finds that as stated this interrogatory is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of Artashyan and possibly third-parties.

Special Interrogatory 7 asks Artashyan to identify any and all bank accounts or accounts at any financial institution, in his name (individually or jointly with anyone else), the name of said bank or institution, address, telephone number, account numbers of each account, and current balance of each account. As stated, this interrogatory is overbroad and invades Artashyan’s and possibly third-parties’ privacy rights.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied as to Special Interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 7 and granted as to Special Interrogatories 1, 2 and 3. Further responses, where ordered, are due within 20 days.

Both Artashyan’s and Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.

Dept. F47

Date: 5/2/23

Case #22CHCV00770

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 1/12/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Gohar Khachatryan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-17. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,085.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

On 10/25/22, Plaintiff served Defendants with Requests for Production of Documents, by mail, making responses due on or before 11/30/22. (See Sefyan Decl., Ex.1); CCP 2031.260(a). Defendants failed to serve responses by 11/30/22. (Sefyan Decl.). On 12/12/22, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter requesting responses by 12/27/22. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.2). On 12/14/22, Defendant served responses which contained only objections. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.3). Plaintiff found the objections to be without merit. (Sefyan Decl.). Despite meet and confer efforts, the parties were unable to resolve the discovery dispute. (Sefyan Decl., Ex.4-8, 10-11).

On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Gohar Khachatryan (Khachatryan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-17. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $3,085.00 against Khachatryan and her attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau. The motion was originally set for hearing on 3/14/23. On 2/10/23, the hearing on this motion was rescheduled to 3/15/23, along with other motions to compel further responses. (See 2/10/23 Minute Order). Khachatryan opposed the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Request 1 seeks “[a]ll monthly Bank Statements for any bank or financial institution account held in YOUR ("YOU" and/or "YOUR" mean and refer to GOHAR KHACHATRYAN) name, either individually or jointly with any other person, company, corporation, or entity.” The request is overbroad as to time and scope as it could include documents that have nothing to do with the issues in this case and thereby unduly invade Khachatryan’s and/or third-parties’ privacy rights.

Request 2 seeks “[a]ll monthly Bank Statements for any bank or financial institution account held in KHACHATRYAN FAMILY CHILD CENTER (hereinafter "KFCC") name, either individually or jointly with any other person, company, corporation, or entity.” The Court finds that this request is sufficiently limited to the issues in this case and does not unduly invade privacy rights.

Request 3 seeks “[a]ll payments to employees, checks, paystubs, IRS 1099 forms, applications for employment, employment contracts, timesheets, CPR and First Aid certification forms, for all employees of Gohar Khachatryan and/or KFCC.” As currently stated, the request is overbroad as it could include persons employed by Khachatryan for purposes other than working at KFCC. Additionally, the request invades the privacy rights of third-parties.

Request 4 seeks “[a]ll Federal or State of California Tax Returns for Gohar Khachatryan and/or KFCC, for Tax Year 2019, 2020, and 2022.” The request is overbroad as it could include information irrelevant to the issues in this case and unduly invade Khachatryan’s privacy rights as the documents may relate to income she receives which is unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 5 seeks “[a]ll enrollment and attendance documents RELATED TO the children who were enrolled and/or attended KFCC, including but not limited to: Child Care Facility Roster, initial enrollment application for each child, copies of payments received from any source, attendance sheets.” The request is overbroad as responsive documents could reveal private information of third-parties.

Request 6 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO Child Care Resource Center (hereinafter "CCRC"), including, but not limited to, monthly attendance forms, monthly payments, monthly payment details, amount received for each child per month, any payments returned to CCRC.” Again, the request is overbroad as responsive documents could reveal private information of third-parties.

Request 7 seeks “[a]ll All DOCUMENTS RELATED TO KidKare by Minute Menu (hereinafter "KidKare"), including, but not limited to, monthly and/or daily attendance forms, monthly payments, monthly payment details, amount received per month, any payments returned to KidKare.” The request is overbroad as responsive documents could reveal private information of third-parties.

Request 8 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS from the State of California Online Background Check System, called Guardian (hereinafter "Guardian"), including, but not limited to, Facility Roster, detailed list of all persons currently or previously employed at the KFCC, list of all adults who are currently or previously residing and/or working at KFCC.” Again, the request is overbroad as responsive documents could invade the privacy rights of third-parties.

Request 9 seeks “[a]ll application for loan, grant, or any payment, from any government or non-government organization, for Gohar Khachatryan, and/or KFCC.” The request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Khachatryan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 10 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, letters, emails (electronic mail), monthly statements, copies of payments received, copies of payments made, related to any loan, grant, or any payment, from any government or non-government organization, for Gohar Khachatryan, and/or KFCC.” Like Request 9, the request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Khachatryan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 11 seeks “[a]ll payments received from any government or non-government organization, as loan, gift, grant or any type of payment, for Gohar Khachatryan, and/or KFCC.” Like Requests 9 and 10, this request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Khachatryan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 12 seeks “[a]ll payments made to any government or non-government organization, payment towards any loan, gift, grant or any type of repayment, from Gohar Khachatryan, and/or KFCC.” Like the prior requests, this request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Khachatryan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 13 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO any and all payments made by or on behalf of KFCC.” The request seeks documents relevant to the issues in this case and is sufficiently limited.

Request 14 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO any and all of KFCC's expenses.” The request also seeks documents relevant to the issues in this case and is sufficiently limited.

Request 15 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the source of funds used to purchase the property, located at 11226 Woodley Ave, Granada Hills, CA 91344 (hereinafter "Woodley Property").” The request is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of Khachatryan and possibly third-parties.

Request 16 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO any agreements between GOHAR KHACHATRYAN, individually or jointly, and ARMEN SEFYAN and/or ANNIE KHOSTEGYAN, at any time.” The request seeks documents relevant to the issues in this case and is sufficiently limited.

Request 17 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO all sources of income for GOHAR KHACHATRYAN.” The request is overbroad in time and scope and unduly invades Khachatryan’s privacy rights as responsive documents could include information irrelevant to the issues in this case.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied as to Requests 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17 and granted as to Requests 2, 13, 14 and 16. Further responses, where ordered, are due within 20 days.

Both Khachatryan’s and Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.

Dept. F47

Date: 5/2/23

Case #22CHCV00770

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Production of Documents, Set 1)

Motion filed on 1/12/23.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Armen Sefyan

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Armen Artashyan

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-9. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,810.00 against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau.

RULING: The motion is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as set forth below.

On 1/12/23, Plaintiff filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant Armen Artashyan (Artashyan) to serve verified further substantive responses, without objections, to Plaintiff Armen Sefyan’s (Plaintiff) Request for Production of Documents, Set 1, numbers 1-9. Additionally, Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,810.00 against Artashyan and his attorneys Areg Sarkissian and Lauren Landau. The motion was originally set for hearing on 3/15/23. Artashyan opposed the motion and Plaintiff filed a reply to the opposition.

ANALYSIS

Request 1 seeks “[a]ll monthly Bank Statements for any bank or financial institution account held in YOUR ("YOU" and/or "YOUR" mean and refer to ARMEN ARTASHYAN) name, either individually or jointly with any other person, company, corporation, or entity.” The request is overbroad as to time and scope as it could include documents that have nothing to do with the issues in this case and thereby unduly invade Artashyan’s and/or third-parties’ privacy rights.

Request 2 seeks “[a]ll Federal or State of California Tax Returns for ARMEN ARTASHYAN, individually or jointly with any other person, for Tax Year 2019m 2020, and 2033.” The request is overbroad as it could include information irrelevant to the issues in this case and unduly invades Artashyan’s privacy rights as the documents may relate to income he receives which is unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 3 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS, including but not limited to, letters, emails (electronic mail), monthly statements, copies of payments received, copies of payments made, related to any loan, grant, or any payment, from any government or non-government organization, for ARMEN ARTASHYAN.” The request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Artashyan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 4 seeks “[a]ll payments received from any government or non-government organization, as loan, gift, grant or any type of payment, for ARMEN ARTASHYAN.” Like Requests 3, this request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Artashyan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 5 seeks “[a]ll payments made to any government or non-government organization, payment towards any loan, gift, grant or any type of repayment, from ARMEN ARTASHYAN.” Like the prior requests, this request is overbroad in time and scope as it includes documents related solely to Artashyan at any time. As such, it seeks documents which could be wholly unrelated to the issues in this case.

Request 6 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the source of funds used to purchase the property, located at 11226 Woodley Ave, Granada Hills, CA 91344 (hereinafter "Woodley Property").” The request is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of Artashyan and possibly third-parties.

Request 7 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO any agreements between ARMEN ARTASHYAN, individually or jointly, and ARMEN SEFYAN and/or ANNIE KHOSTEGYAN, at any time.” The request seeks documents relevant to the issues in this case and is sufficiently limited.

Request 8 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO all sources of income for ARMEN ARTASHYAN.” The request is overbroad in time and scope and unduly invades Artashyan’s privacy rights as responsive documents could include information irrelevant to the issues in this case.

Request 9 seeks “[a]ll DOCUMENTS RELATED TO the sources of funds given as a gift to GOHAR KHACHATRYAN, to purchase the WOODLEY PROPERTY.” The request is overbroad and invades the privacy rights of Artashyan and possibly third-parties.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied as to Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 and granted as to Requests 7. A further response, to Request 7 is due within 20 days.

Both Artashyan’s and Plaintiffs’ requests for sanctions are denied.