Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 20STCV30142, Date: 2023-05-16 Tentative Ruling
The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.
Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.
Case Number: 20STCV30142 Hearing Date: May 16, 2023 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Responses by Noil Energy, Inc., Noil USA, Inc. and Speedy Fuels [sic] to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three, and Supplemental Requests for Production and Imposing a Monetary Sanction
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Speedy to Respond to Special Interrogatory No. 27, and Imposing Sanctions
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to CARB’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Imposing a Monetary Sanction
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to CARB’s Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and Imposing a Monetary Sanction
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Speedy to Produce Anush Zakaryan for Deposition
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None.
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Responses by Noil USA, Inc. to Request for Production No. 11
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Responses by Noil Energy, Inc. to Request for Production No. 12
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion to Compel Defendant Speedy to Produce Grigor Termendjian for Deposition
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions Against Defendant Noil USA, Inc.
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions Against Defendant Noil Energy Group, Inc.
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
SUBJECT: Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions Against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc.
Moving Party: Plaintiff The People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board
Resp. Party: None
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to RPDs Set Three is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to SROGs Set Three is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to SROGs Set Four GRANTED.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $900.00.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to SROG No. 27 Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. must serve its verified answer to SROG No. 27 within 7 days of the issuance of this Order.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to RPD No. 11 is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to RPD No. 12 is DENIED as moot.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. in the amount of $900.00.
Plaintiff’s Noil USA Motion to Establish Admissions to RFAs is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Noil Energy Motion to Establish Admissions to RFAs is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Speedy Fuel Motion to Establish Admissions to RFAs is DENIED as moot.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500.00.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Zakaryan Deposition is GRANTED. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. shall make Anush Zakaryan available for deposition within 14 days.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the Termendjian Deposition Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. shall make Grigor Termendjian available for deposition within 14 days.
BACKGROUND:
On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff People of the State of California ex rel. California Air Resources Board filed two Complaints for Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief: one against Defendant Noil Energy Group, Inc. (Case Number 20STCV30142) and another against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. (Case Number 20STCV30292).
On May 6, 2021, Plaintiff amended its Complaint against Defendant Noil Energy Group, Inc. to substitute Doe 1 with Noil USA, Inc.
On May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed two new Complaints against Defendants: one against Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc. (Case Number 21STCV18270) and the other against Speedy Fuel, Inc. (Case Number 21STCV18251).
On June 22, 2021, the Court found that the four cases are related and further found that 20STCV30142 is the lead case.
On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.
On August 10, 2021, Defendants Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc. filed their Verified Answer to the Complaint in Case Number 21STCV18270.
On August 11, 2021, Defendants Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc. filed their Verified Answer to the First Amended Complaint in Case Number 20STCV30142.
On August 11, 2021, Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. filed its Verified Answer to the Complaint in Case Number 21STCV18251 and its Verified Answer to First Amended Complaint in Case Number 20STCV30292.
On August 18, 2021, Defendants/Cross-Complainants Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA Inc. filed their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants California ex rel. California Air Resources Board, California Department of Food and Agriculture, Los Angeles Police Department, and Los Angeles Police Officer Walter McMahon.
On November 29, 2021, Plaintiff amended its First Amended Complaint to substitute Doe 2 with Noil Fontana, LLC.
On October 18, 2022, by Stipulation of the Parties, the Court ordered the consolidation of Case Numbers 20STCV30142 and 21STCV18270 and that all subsequently filed papers shall be filed only in Case Number 20STCV30142, with references to Case Number 21STCV18270 as a consolidated action.
On February 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief Against Noil Energy Group, Inc. and Noil USA, Inc.
On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint for Civil Penalties and Injunctive Relief against Speedy Fuel, Inc.
On April 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the following motions:
(1) Motion to Compel Responses by Noil Energy, Inc., Noil USA, Inc. and Speedy Fuels [sic] to Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three, and Supplemental Requests for Production and Imposing a Monetary Sanction (“RPDs Set Three Motion”);
(2) Motion to Compel Speedy to Respond to Special Interrogatory No. 27, and Imposing Sanctions (“SROG No. 27 Motion”);
(3) Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to CARB’s Special Interrogatories, Set Three, and Imposing a Monetary Sanction (“SROGs Set Three Motion”);
(4) Motion to Compel Defendants’ Responses to CARB’s Special Interrogatories, Set Four, and Imposing a Monetary Sanction (“SROGs Set Four Motion”); and
(5) Motion to Compel Defendant Speedy to Produce Anush Zakaryan for Deposition (“Zakaryan Deposition Motion”);
On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the following motion: Motion to Compel Responses by Noil USA, Inc. to Request for Production No. 11 (“RPD No. 11 Motion”).
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed the following motions:
(1) Motion to Compel Responses by Noil Energy, Inc. to Request for Production No. 12 (“RPD No. 12 Motion”); and
(2) Motion to Compel Defendant Speedy to Produce Grigor Termendjian for Deposition (“Termendjian Deposition Motion”).
On April 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed the following motions:
(1) Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions Against Defendant Noil USA, Inc. (“Noil USA RFAs Motion”);
(2) Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions Against Defendant Noil Energy Group, Inc. (“Noil Energy RFAs Motion); and
(3) Motion for Order Establishing Admissions and for Sanctions Against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. (“Speedy Fuel RFAs Motion”).
Each of the motions filed between April 10 and April 28, 2023 was concurrently filed with a Declaration of Gary E. Tavetian and a Proposed Order. Certain others were filed with a Separate Statement.
No opposition has been filed to any of the 11 discovery motions.
On May 12, 2023, the Court contacted the Plaintiff’s Counsel for an update on whether these 11 motions were still scheduled for May 16, 2023. Plaintiff responded by filing a letter with updates regarding the pending motions.
ANALYSIS:
For clarity and ease of analysis, the Court considers the 11 discovery motions in the following groupings: (1) motions involving initial responses to requests for production of documents (“RPDs”) and special interrogatories (“SROGs”); (2) motions involving further responses to RPDs and SROGs; (3) motions involving requests for admission (“RFAs”); and (4) motions involving depositions.
I. Motions Involving Initial Responses to RPDs and SROGs
A. Legal Standard
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and demand requests are propounded within 30 days after service of the requests, unless the time is extended by agreement of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.260, subd. (a), 2030.270, subd. (a), 2031.260, subd. (a), 2031.270, subd. (a).) If a party fails to serve timely responses, "the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (b).) By failing to respond, the offending party waives any objection to the demand. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).)
For a motion to compel, all a propounding party must show is that it properly served its discovery requests, that the time to respond has expired, and that the party to whom the requests were directed failed to provide a timely response. (See Leach v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905, 906.) Indeed, "[o]nce [a party] 'fail[ed] to serve a timely response,' the trial court had authority to grant [opposing party's] motion to compel responses." (Sinaiko Healthcare Counseling, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405.)
The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel motions for interrogatories or requests for production, unless the Court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. If a party then fails to obey an order compelling answers, the court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010). (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)¿
B. Discussion of Discovery
Plaintiff requests that the Court:
(1) Compel all three Defendants to provide initial responses to RPDs Set Three, which Plaintiff served on December 20, 2022, but no responses have been provided (RPDs Set Three Motion, p. 3:12–24);
(2) Compel all three Defendants to provide initial responses to SROGs Set Three, which Plaintiff served on December 20, 2022, but no responses have been provided (SROGs Set Three Motion, p. 3:11–15); and
(3) Compel all three Defendants to provide initial responses to SROGs Set Four, which Plaintiff served on February 17, 2023, but no responses have been provided (SROGs Set Four Motion, p. 3:11–17).
The Court does not have evidence that Defendants have responded to these requests for discovery.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Requests for Production of Documents, Set Three.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel SROGs, Set Three.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel SROGs, Set Four.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for Supplemental Responses to
Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories.
C. Discussion of Monetary Sanctions
Defendants have failed to serve a timely response to these SROGs and RPDs. The Court does not have evidence before it that would indicate there is substantial justification or other circumstances that would make the imposition of a sanction unjust. Thus, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff requests the following monetary sanctions against Defendants:
(1) $1,300.00 in monetary sanctions for RPDs Set Three Motion, consisting of 6.5 hours of work (including two hours for a reply brief and one hour for attending a hearing) at a rate of $200.00 per hour (Decl. Tavetian re RPDs Set Three Motion, ¶ 7);
(2) $1,300.00 in monetary sanctions for SROGs Set Three Motion, consisting of 6.5 hours of work (including two hours for a reply brief and one hour for attending a hearing) at a rate of $200.00 per hour (Decl. Tavetian re SROGs Set Three Motion, ¶ 6); and
(3) $1,300.00 in monetary sanctions for SROGs Set Four Motion, consisting of 6.5 hours of work (including two hours for a reply brief and one hour for attending a hearing) at a rate of $200.00 per hour (Decl. Tavetian re SROGs Set Four Motion, ¶ 5).
“‘[P]adding’ in the form of inefficient or duplicative efforts is not subject to compensation.” (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1131; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 1000.)
The Court finds that the hourly rate is reasonable. However, given that these three motions are nearly identical, the authorities cited are boilerplate, and the work claimed for each motion is identical, the Court will only grant monetary sanctions for one of the motions. Furthermore, the two hours of anticipated work for the replies did not materialize as no oppositions were filed.
The Court GRANTS monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $900.00.
D. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s RPDs Set Three Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s SROGs Set Three Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s SROGs Set Four Motion is GRANTED.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $900.00.
II. Motions Involving Further Responses to RPDs and SROGs
A. Legal Standard
On receipt of a response to form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and/or demand requests, the propounding and/or demanding party “may move for an order compelling further response” if: (1) the response is evasive or incomplete; (2) the representation of inability to comply is inadequate, incomplete, or evasive; or (3) the objection is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (a), 2031.310, subd. (a).)¿¿¿
“On receipt of a response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or both of the following apply: (1)¿An answer to a particular request is evasive or incomplete[;] (2)¿An objection to a particular request is without merit or too general. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a)(1)–(2).)
The court shall impose monetary sanctions against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel further interrogatories and/or a motion to compel further production of documents, unless the Court finds that the one subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h).)
B. Discussion of Discovery
Plaintiff requests further responses to the following discovery requests:
(1) SROG No. 27, from SROGs Set Two (SROG No. 27 Motion, p. 7:2–4; Separate Statement re SROGs No. 27 Motion, pp. 2:28, 3:2–7);
(2) RPD No. 11, from RPDs Set Two (RPD No. 11 Motion, p. 5:20–22; Separate Statement re RPD No. 11 Motion, pp. 5:22–28, 6:1–9); and
(3) RPD No. 12, from RPDs Set Two (RPD No. 12 Motion, p. 5:26–28; Separate Statement re RPD No. 12 Motion, pp. 5:22–28, 6:1–12.)
Plaintiff notified the Court that Defendant Noil USA, Inc. served a verified response to RPD No. 11 and that Defendant Noil Energy, Inc. served a verified response to RPD No. 12, but that Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. only served an unverified answer to SROG No. 27.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s SROG No. 27 Motion. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. must serve its verified answer to SROG No. 27 within 7 days of the issuance of this Order.
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses t0 RPD No. 11.
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to RPD No. 12 Motion.
C. Discussion of Sanctions
The Court granted Plaintiff’s motions for further responses to discovery.
Plaintiff requests $1,300.00 in monetary sanctions for SROG No. 27 Motion, consisting of 6.5 hours of work (including two hours for a reply brief and one hour for attending a hearing) at a rate of $200.00 per hour. (Decl. Tavetian re SROG No. 27 Motion, ¶ 6.)
The Court does not find that Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of a monetary sanction unjust on this Defendant. Thus, the Court is required to impose a monetary sanction on Defendant.
The Court finds that the hourly rate is reasonable. However, the two hours of anticipated work for the replies did not materialize as no oppositions were filed.
The Court GRANTS monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. in the amount of $900.00.
D. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s SROG No. 27 Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. must serve its verified answer to SROG No. 27 within 14 days of the issuance of this Order.
Plaintiff’s RPD No. 11 Motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s RPD No. 12 Motion is DENIED as moot.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. in the amount of $900.00.
III. Motion Requesting Initial Responses to RFAs
A. Legal Standard
California Code of Civil Procedure requires a response from the party to whom the request for admissions is directed within 30 days after service of the request for admissions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.250, subd. (a).)
If the party fails to serve a timely response, “the party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a).)
The requesting party may then “move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)
A court will deem requests admitted, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
B. Discussion of Discovery
Plaintiff served RFAs on Defendants on March 23, 2023. (Noil USA RFAs Motion, p. 3:10–11; Noil Energy RFAs Motion, p. 3:10–11; Speedy Fuel RFAs Motion, p. 3:10–11.)
Plaintiff notified the Court on May 12, 2023 that Defendants Noil USA, Inc. and Noil Energy Group, Inc. have served verified responses, but that Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. has only served unverified responses. (Letter dated May 12, 2023, ¶¶ 9–11.)
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Noil USA RFAs Motion.
The Court DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Noil Energy RFAs Motion.
Unverified discovery responses are tantamount to no response at all. (Appleton v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.)
The Court does not have evidence that Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. responded to the RFAs.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Speedy Fuel RFAs Motion.
C. Discussion of Sanctions
As Defendants failed to serve timely responses to requests for admission, which necessitated this motion, the Court must impose a monetary sanction on Defendants. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)
Plaintiff requests $500.00 for each of these three motions, although it appears that 5.5 hours of work were anticipated. (Decl. Tavetian re Noil USA RFAs Motion, ¶ 7; Decl. Tavetian re Noil Energy RFAs Motion, ¶ 7; Decl. Tavetian re Speedy Fuel, ¶ 7.)
As indicated above in §I(C), the Court finds that the hourly rate is reasonable. However, given that these three motions are nearly identical, the authorities cited are boilerplate, and the work claimed for each motion is identical, the Court will only grant monetary sanctions for one of the motions. The requested amount of $500.00 is appropriate because Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that they did 2.5 hours of work on the motion and anticipated spending one hour at the hearing.
The Court GRANTS monetary sanctions in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500.00.
D. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Noil USA RFAs Motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Noil Energy RFAs Motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff’s Speedy Fuel RFAs Motion is DENIED as moot.
Monetary sanctions are GRANTED in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $500.00.
IV. Deposition Motions
A. Legal Standard
Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral deposition of any person, including any party to the action.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.)¿A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)¿¿¿¿
¿¿¿
“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party . . . fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document . . . described in the deposition notice, the party giving notice may move for an order compelling deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production . . . of any document . . . described in the deposition notice.”¿¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)¿¿
¿
The motion must set forth both facts showing good cause justifying the demand for any documents and a meet and confer declaration.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subds. (b)(1), (b)(2).) “Implicit in the requirement that counsel contact the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance is a requirement that counsel listen to the reasons offered and make a good faith attempt to resolve the issue,” including by rescheduling. (Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Serv. (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1124.)¿¿
“If a motion under subdivision (a) [of Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450] is granted, the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) in favor of the party who noticed the deposition and against the deponent or the party with whom the deponent is affiliated, unless the court finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)¿
¿
“The court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion for a protective order, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (h).)¿
B. Discussion of Discovery
On March 7, 2023 Plaintiff noticed Anush Zakaryan, one of Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc.’s employees, for a deposition on March 24, 2023. (Zakaryan Deposition, pp. 3:24–28, 4:1–8.) Anush Zakaryan still has not been made available for a deposition. (Letter dated May 12, 2023, ¶ 1.)
The Court GRANTS the Zakaryan Deposition Motion. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. shall make Anush Zakaryan available for deposition within 14 days of the issuance of this Order.
Plaintiff noticed Grigor Termendjian, the Chief Executive Officer for Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc., on January 18, 2023, April 7, 2023, and April 17, 2023. (Termendjian Deposition, p. 15–21.) Grigor Termendjian still has not been made available for a deposition. (Letter dated May 12, 2023, ¶ 2.) The Court denied a motion to stay in this case on May 4, 2023. Although the arguments in that motion involved Mr. Termendjian, however, neither he nor Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. have opposed making him available for a deposition.
The Court GRANTS the Termendjian Deposition Motion. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. shall make Grigor Termendjian available for deposition within 14 days.
C. Conclusion
The Zakaryan Deposition Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. shall make Anush Zakaryan available for deposition within 14 days.
The Termendjian Deposition Motion is GRANTED. Defendant Speedy Fuel, Inc. shall make Grigor Termendjian available for deposition within 14 days.