On May 26, 2022 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Av Automotive, Inc.,
Vartanian, Arsen H,
Portillo, Edgar,
and
Does 1-60,
Does 1 Through 35,
Vartanian, Vahak,
for Fraud Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
FERRIS & BRITTON mm £333 ‘n‘f‘
f"
1
~
'
A Professional Corporation """‘~‘
VW‘WMI'NSéfmrS
aw.» K
'
Michael R. Weinstein (SBN 106464)
Scott H. Toothacre (SBN 146530) r7
78A.
5E8 l ’ ‘- [4"
Elyssa K. Kulas (SBN 317559)
501 West Broadway, Suite 1450
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-3 1 31
\OOONONU‘I#UJI\)>—n
Fax: (619) 232-9316
mweinstein@ferrisbritton.com
stoothacre@ferrisbritton.com
ekulas@ferrisbritton.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ARSEN H. VARTANIAN and
AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO-SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
ARSEN H. VARTANIAN, an individual; AV Case N0. CIVSB2210697
AUTOMOTIVE, INC, a California Corporation,
Judge: Hon. Winston Keh
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
V. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF ARSEN H. VARTANIAN’S
VAHAK VARTANIAN, an individual, doing MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
business as Vartanian 0n Wheels and VOW DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM
Automotive; and DOES 1 through 35, inclusive, DEFENDANT VAHAK VARTANIAN AND
REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
NNNNNNNpr—Ap—Ap—Ap—dr—Ar—Ar—AHHH
Defendants.
DATE: April 4, 2023
TIME: 8:30 am
OONOU‘I-PUJNF—‘OOWNONUl-PWNHO
DEPT: S33
Action Filed: June 9, 2022
Trial Date: Not Yet Set
MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Plaintiff, ARSEN H. VARTANIAN (hereinafter “P1aintift”) requests the Court issue an
order compelling Defendant VAHAK VARTANIAN (hereinafter “Defendant”) to provide further
substantive responses without objection t0 Plaintiff s requested: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One;
(2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests For Admissions, Set One; and (4) Request For
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARSEN H.
VARTANIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM
DEFENDANT VAHAK VARTANIAN AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff further requests the Court issue monetary sanctions
against Vahak Vartanian and his attorney of record in the amount 0f $2,080.00.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff Arsen Vartanian served on Defendant Vahak Vartanian: (1)
Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests For Production of
\OOONONUIAUJNH
Documents, Set One; and (4) Requests For Admissions, Set One. (Declaration of Attorney Scott H.
Toothacre fl 2, hereinafter “SHT Decl. 1]
2”, and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 t0 Plaintiffs NOL.)
On 0r about January 17, 2023, Defendant Vahak Vartanian served objection-only responses t0
each set (not to individual discovery requests) of the above-described discovery. (SHT Decl. 1] 3, and
Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8 t0 Plaintiff’s NOL. Defendant made the same objection-only response t0 each
form 0f discovery sent by Plaintiff as follows:
“Obj ection. No foundation. The issues that pertain t0 the underlying lawsuit are subj ect to
demurrer. Defendant is unable t0 produce any documents in response until such time that
Plaintiff’s complaint is determined to have merit relative to the issues that pertain t0
discovery.”
On January 30, 2023, counsel for plaintiff sent a “meet and confer” letter t0 opposing counsel
explaining that his filing of a demurrer did not, and does not, stay discovery in this action and requested
supplemental responses to all four sets of discovery n0 later than February 6, 2023. (SHT Decl. 114, and
NNNNNNNNNHHHHp—IHHHHH
Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff” s NOL.) Defense counsel simply ignored Plaintiff counsel’s meet and confer letter
OOVONUIAUJNt—‘OKOOOVQUIALANHO
and sent no response. (SHT Decl. 11 5.)
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. A Motion t0 Compel is the Proper Vehicle to Obtain Compliant Responses With
Regard to Each Form of Discovery Utilized by Plaintiff Herein
Each discovery method employed by Plaintiff provides that the remedy for failure to object
or for making baseless objections is a motion to compel further responses as follows:
1. Form and Special Interrogatories
If a party t0 Whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, 0r responds with
objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is t0 seek a court order compelling
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARSEN H.
VARTANIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM
DEFENDANT VAHAK VARTANIAN AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS
Document Filed Date
February 17, 2023
Case Filing Date
May 26, 2022
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
FERRIS & BRITTON mm £333 ‘n‘f‘ f" 1 ~ ' A Professional Corporation """‘~‘ VW‘WMI'NSéfmrS aw.» K ' Michael R. Weinstein (SBN 106464) Scott H. Toothacre (SBN 146530) r7 78A. 5E8 l ’ ‘- [4" Elyssa K. Kulas (SBN 317559) 501 West Broadway, Suite 1450 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 233-3 1 31 \OOONONU‘I#UJI\)>—n Fax: (619) 232-9316 mweinstein@ferrisbritton.com stoothacre@ferrisbritton.com ekulas@ferrisbritton.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ARSEN H. VARTANIAN and AV AUTOMOTIVE, INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO-SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER ARSEN H. VARTANIAN, an individual; AV Case N0. CIVSB2210697 AUTOMOTIVE, INC, a California Corporation, Judge: Hon. Winston Keh Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND V. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARSEN H. VARTANIAN’S VAHAK VARTANIAN, an individual, doing MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER business as Vartanian 0n Wheels and VOW DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM Automotive; and DOES 1 through 35, inclusive, DEFENDANT VAHAK VARTANIAN AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS NNNNNNNpr—Ap—Ap—Ap—dr—Ar—Ar—AHHH Defendants. DATE: April 4, 2023 TIME: 8:30 am OONOU‘I-PUJNF—‘OOWNONUl-PWNHO DEPT: S33 Action Filed: June 9, 2022 Trial Date: Not Yet Set MEMORANDUM 0F POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiff, ARSEN H. VARTANIAN (hereinafter “P1aintift”) requests the Court issue an order compelling Defendant VAHAK VARTANIAN (hereinafter “Defendant”) to provide further substantive responses without objection t0 Plaintiff s requested: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests For Admissions, Set One; and (4) Request For 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARSEN H. VARTANIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT VAHAK VARTANIAN AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS Production of Documents, Set One. Plaintiff further requests the Court issue monetary sanctions against Vahak Vartanian and his attorney of record in the amount 0f $2,080.00. II. BACKGROUND On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff Arsen Vartanian served on Defendant Vahak Vartanian: (1) Form Interrogatories, Set One; (2) Special Interrogatories, Set One; (3) Requests For Production of \OOONONUIAUJNH Documents, Set One; and (4) Requests For Admissions, Set One. (Declaration of Attorney Scott H. Toothacre fl 2, hereinafter “SHT Decl. 1] 2”, and Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 t0 Plaintiffs NOL.) On 0r about January 17, 2023, Defendant Vahak Vartanian served objection-only responses t0 each set (not to individual discovery requests) of the above-described discovery. (SHT Decl. 1] 3, and Exhibits 5, 6, 7 and 8 t0 Plaintiff’s NOL. Defendant made the same objection-only response t0 each form 0f discovery sent by Plaintiff as follows: “Obj ection. No foundation. The issues that pertain t0 the underlying lawsuit are subj ect to demurrer. Defendant is unable t0 produce any documents in response until such time that Plaintiff’s complaint is determined to have merit relative to the issues that pertain t0 discovery.” On January 30, 2023, counsel for plaintiff sent a “meet and confer” letter t0 opposing counsel explaining that his filing of a demurrer did not, and does not, stay discovery in this action and requested supplemental responses to all four sets of discovery n0 later than February 6, 2023. (SHT Decl. 114, and NNNNNNNNNHHHHp—IHHHHH Exhibit 9 to Plaintiff” s NOL.) Defense counsel simply ignored Plaintiff counsel’s meet and confer letter OOVONUIAUJNt—‘OKOOOVQUIALANHO and sent no response. (SHT Decl. 11 5.) III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. A Motion t0 Compel is the Proper Vehicle to Obtain Compliant Responses With Regard to Each Form of Discovery Utilized by Plaintiff Herein Each discovery method employed by Plaintiff provides that the remedy for failure to object or for making baseless objections is a motion to compel further responses as follows: 1. Form and Special Interrogatories If a party t0 Whom interrogatories are directed either fails to respond at all, 0r responds with objections or incomplete answers, the propounding party’s remedy is t0 seek a court order compelling 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF ARSEN H. VARTANIAN’S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT VAHAK VARTANIAN AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS