Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/28/2020 at 00:22:19 (UTC).

AKOP TOROSIAN ET AL VS ARUTYUN FITILCHYAN ET AL

Case Summary

On 04/18/2016 AKOP TOROSIAN filed a Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury lawsuit against ARUTYUN FITILCHYAN. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are RALPH C. HOFER, LAURA A. MATZ, DAVID SOTELO and MICHAEL S. MINK. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7479

  • Filing Date:

    04/18/2016

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Personal Injury

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

RALPH C. HOFER

LAURA A. MATZ

DAVID SOTELO

MICHAEL S. MINK

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Petitioners

MADATYAN ELDA

TOROSIAN AKOP

TOROSIAN ROBERT

FERMANYAN MARINA

TOROSIAN JACK

Defendants and Respondents

TASHJIAN ARMEN

JERMAKYAN ARMEN (ARMENAK)

GASPARYAN HRACHYA

DOES 1 THROUGH 100

MKHITARYAN ASHOT

FITILCHYAN ARUTYUN

JERMAKYAN ARMEN ARMENAK

JERMAKYAN ARMEN AK

12 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Plaintiff Attorneys

GREENBLATT FREDRIC JAY

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. BEHESNILIAN

DANEIL V. BEHISNILIAN LAW OFFICES OF

TABATABAI & MIYAMOTO APC

COLE JONATHAN B. ESQ.

O'MEARA FRANCES MARY

THOMPSON COE & O'MEARA

NEMECEK & COLE

MIYAMOTO RICHARD T

TABATABAI FARZAD B. ESQ.

GREENBLATTLOVERIDGE ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. BEHESNILIAN

Defendant and Respondent Attorney

COLE JONATHAN B. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE PLAINTIFF ARMEN T...)

6/20/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE PLAINTIFF ARMEN T...)

Substitution of Attorney

9/14/2020: Substitution of Attorney

Summons - Summons on Complaint

4/18/2016: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint

4/18/2016: Complaint

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

6/16/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Proof-Service/Summons

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

7/6/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Reply

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

8/5/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Miscellaneous-Other

9/12/2016: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Miscellaneous-Other

Case Management Statement

7/7/2017: Case Management Statement

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Statement

2/14/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Statement

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-07-19 00:00:00

7/19/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-07-19 00:00:00

Other - -

8/17/2018: Other - -

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

8/17/2018: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

2/1/2019: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE; DECLARATION OF FARZAD TABATABAI, ESQ.

4/18/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE; DECLARATION OF FARZAD TABATABAI, ESQ.

Objection - PLAINTIFF ROBERT TOROSIAN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT TASHJIAN'S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION

4/23/2019: Objection - PLAINTIFF ROBERT TOROSIAN'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT TASHJIAN'S NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION

Order - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE, MABEL HAYEK, CSR NO. 11815 FOR 4/29/209 HEARING DEPARTMENT D

4/29/2019: Order - ORDER APPOINTING COURT APPROVED REPORTER AS OFFICIAL REPORTER PRO TEMPORE, MABEL HAYEK, CSR NO. 11815 FOR 4/29/209 HEARING DEPARTMENT D

SUMMONS -

4/18/2016: SUMMONS -

152 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/30/2021
  • Hearing06/30/2021 at 08:31 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Hearing01/29/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion for Order Lifting Stay and Permitting Discovery filed on behalf of Defendant Ashot Mkhitaryan

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Hearing01/29/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Reopen Discovery

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2021
  • Hearing01/29/2021 at 09:00 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Order to Show Cause Re: re: Five-Year-Rule (Global)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/21/2021
  • Hearing01/21/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department D at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department D; Hearing on Motion - Other (Motion to Reopen Discovery) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by ASHOT MKHITARYAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:31 AM in Department D; Trial Setting Conference ((Global)) - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference (Global))); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by ARMEN TASHJIAN (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
275 More Docket Entries
  • 05/31/2016
  • DocketMotion; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • DocketTASHJIAN'S NOTICE OF MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT DUE TO PLAINTIFFS' FAILURE TO OBTAIN THE MANDATORY CIVIL CODE SECTION 1714.10 ETC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • DocketMotion to Strike (PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT ); Filed by Attorney for Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/18/2016
  • DocketMotion to Strike; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by AKOP TOROSIAN (Plaintiff); ROBERT TOROSIAN (Plaintiff); Marina Fermanyan (Plaintiff) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • DocketComplaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. ASSAULT AND BATTERY; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2016
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC617479    Hearing Date: March 19, 2021    Dept: D

TENTATIVE RULING
Calendar:    10
Date:          3/19/2021
Case No: BC617479 Trial Date:  None Set 
Case Name: Torosian, et al. v. Fitilchyan, et al. 
MOTION TO LIFT STAY
Moving Party:          Defendant Ashot Mkhitaryan  
Responding Party: Plaintiffs Akop Torosian, Robert Torosian  (No Opposition)       
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order lifting stay and permitting discovery to proceed 
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiffs Akop Torosian and Robert Torosian allege that in April of 2014, plaintiff Akop Torosian retained the services of defendant Arutyun Fitilchyan, a locksmith, to provide locksmith services at plaintiff’s residence in Glendale.  When defendant failed to show up for a scheduled meeting, and plaintiff called defendant to find out his estimated time of arrival, defendant became upset, using profanity and abusive language.  Plaintiff contacted defendant Ashot Mkhitaryan, defendant Fitilchyan’s apprentice, whom plaintiff knew, and informed him of the phone conversation with Fitilchyan.  Defendant Mkhitaryan arranged for plaintiff to meet with defendant Fitilchyan that day, at the body shop owned by defendant Hrachya Gasparyan, where plaintiff was physically assaulted by defendants Gasparyan and Fitilchyan, but was able to flee the shop.
The complaint alleges that defendant Mkhitaryan then lured plaintiff Akop Torosian to return to the body shop to resolve the dispute amicably. Plaintiff contacted his brother, plaintiff Robert Torosian, to accompany him.   
Upon arrival at the body shop, defendant Fitilchyan charged at plaintiff Robert Torosian and attempted to strike him with his fists, while defendant Gasparyan produced a handgun and shot plaintiff Robert Torosian in the lower abdomen.  Defendants Fitilchyan and Gasparyan, and possibly other shooters, continued shooting at plaintiffs.  In defense of his brother and himself, plaintiff Akop Torosian produced a firearm and returned fire, and Fitilchyan and Gasparyan were shot in the cross-fire.   Plaintiff Akop Torosian called 911 and plaintiff Robert Torosian was transported to the hospital, while plaintiff Akop Torosian was detained pending a criminal investigation and released later that evening.  
The complaint alleges that defendants Fitilchyan and Mkhitaryan, along with their counsel, moving defendant Armen Tashjian, and defendant Armen Jermakyan, conspired to extort money from plaintiff Akop Torosian, and used threats, intimidation and fear to force plaintiffs to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, and also came up with a plan to provide law enforcement officers with inaccurate statements which would result in criminal charges against plaintiffs, and force them to pay the sums demanded.   Fitilchyan, with the counsel of defendant Tashjian, gave a false statement to law enforcement, which resulted in charges being filed against plaintiff Akop Torosian.  No charges were filed against plaintiff Robert Torosian.  Plaintiff Akop Torosian was released on bail.   The complaint alleges that from November of 2014 through June of 2015, defendants continued to attempt to extort $2 million from plaintiffs, demanding this sum in exchange for defendants’ help in having the charges dropped against Akop Torosian.   
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs informed the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office of the plot to extort money, and that after investigation, defendant Tashjian was arrested and charged with extortion, conspiracy and other charges.  The investigation against the remaining defendants is ongoing.  In November 2015, the charges against plaintiff Akop Torosian were dropped. 
Plaintiffs’ spouses, plaintiffs Marina Fermanyan and Elda Madatyan, bring a cause of action for loss of consortium against all defendants. 
On February 27, 2019, the court stayed this matter and a related case, Case No. BC 616980, except for matters relating to a Special Motion to Strike set for hearing on April 29, 2019.  On April 29, 2019, the court granted defendant Armen Tashjian’s oral request to place the Special Motion to Strike off-calendar.  
On November 1, 2019, the court heard a motion brought by defendant Armen Tashjian to partially lift the discovery stay, which was fully briefed, and denied. 
On August 17, 2020, the heard various OSCs regarding lifting the stay in this and a related case and to reset motions.  The court’s minute order indicates that this case, as the lead case, was called for hearing with the other case, and the minute order states:
“Court is not inclined to order a partial lifting of the stay as it starts the Five Year Statute to begin running. 
Counsel in the related case BC617479 Akpo Torosian v. Arutyan Fitilchyan argue that the case is an extortion case and the Criminal Case has concluded with a plea taken. 
The Torsians represent to the Court that the District Attorney cautioned them that if further evidence is presented they may file additional charges and stand on their Fifth Amendment Constitutional Rights in the Lead Case.
Court informs counsel that they should seek either "Transactional Immunity", or "Use Immunity" by filing their motion, the Court could then approve same and lift the stay after the District Attorney approves same.”
The minute order notes that a motion for stay had been rescheduled to 1/27/2021, which was subsequently continued by stipulation to this date, according to a minute order of January 21, 2021.   There is reference to a Motion to Reopen Discovery, when such a motion does not appear in the court file.  All previous motions to lift the stay have been determined.
The minute order for January 21, 2021 on the other case, BC616980 states, in pertinent part, “Counsel for the Plaintiff (in that case Fitilchyan, et al.) reports that the extortion case was dismissed, however, the shooting case is still pending in the related criminal action.”    
ANALYSIS:
This motion was filed prior to the January 21, 2021 hearing, at which the court expressed its concern that lifting the stay in this matter at this juncture appeared to present difficulties with the five year rule, and at which there was a discussion concerning the pursuit of either "Transactional Immunity", or "Use Immunity" with respect to the criminal charges.  
There have been no further papers filed indicating the status of the criminal matters, and nothing further reported concerning efforts to seek immunity.   
The motion is brought by defendant Ashot Mkhitaryan, seeking that the stay of this matter be lifted immediately on the ground this defendant served the Torosian plaintiffs with discovery in September of 2018, and that it is believed that the responses to that discovery will result in Mkhitaryan being dismissed from this action.  The motion argues that it is unfair and prejudicial to defendant Mkhitaryan to be stuck in this lawsuit to which he is peripheral, and for him to continue incurring attorney’s fees in a lawsuit that under normal circumstances he would have been dismissed from long ago, by either the court or plaintiffs.  
The motion curiously argues that if defendant is not dismissed, he will be prejudiced by being required to take the depositions of plaintiffs to evidence that he had no involvement in this matter, and should not be part of the fight between plaintiffs and the other defendants.  However, if the stay continues to be in place, defendant will not be required to participate in such discovery, and will essentially be required to do nothing in this matter until the stay is lifted, and at that point can seek orders concerning the sequence of discovery going forward, if appropriate.  The motion argues that moving defendant is not a party to the criminal case or to the related extortion case.   However, it would appear that this case and moving defendant’s alleged involvement is intertwined with the proceedings concerning the shooting itself, which are evidently still pending in the criminal proceedings.   
Case law has recognized the power of the court to issue a stay in circumstances where parallel civil and criminal actions are proceeding:
“The Constitution does not require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.  A court, however, has the discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions when the interests of justice seem to require such action, sometimes at the request of the prosecution, sometimes at the request of the defense.”
Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886.
Since the determination does not involve constitutional issues, a trial court’s determination concerning whether to stay the discovery process or the civil action pending the disposition of the parallel criminal case is reviewed “on abuse of discretion grounds.”   Avant!, at 886.  The trial court’s determination will not be disturbed unless the appellate court finds the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.   Avant!, at 889.
In making this determination, the trial court should consider the extent to which a party’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.  Avant!, at 885, citing Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324.  
There is no question here that the fifth amendment rights of the parties are implicated in this matter for the period during which a parallel criminal matter is pending against any of those parties.  The motion argues, however, that since the Torosians are plaintiffs in this matter, they are not as clearly entitled to protection as would be the case if they were defendants.  The argument is that plaintiffs are not involuntary defendants, and are not faced with the usual choice for such defendants between silence and avoiding monetary loss, but can choose to forego pursuing the civil action.  The motion cites Hartbrodt v. Burke (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 168, 174-175, in which the Second District affirmed the dismissal of an action as a discovery sanction, where a plaintiff withheld discovery based on a claimed fifth amendment privilege, where a criminal investigation was underway, holding “a plaintiff cannot bring an action and then place it in limbo until it is safe for him to pursue it, requiring the adverse parties to accommodate his convenience while memories fade, witnesses disappear, and the pending litigation frustrates the futures of the defendants.”   Hartbrodt, at 174.  
However, we have a situation here where the matter has been related to a case arising from the same incidents, where the Torosian plaintiffs are in fact named as defendants by several of the defendants in this case, so that the situation essentially involves what amounts to a cross-complaint to this action pursuant to which the parties claiming the fifth amendment privilege are facing the same issues ordinarily faced by civil defendants, and which similarly implicate their fifth amendment rights.    
In any case, the issue will be discussed at the hearing, and it appears that the stay of these matters remains a case management issue, with the court particularly concerned that due to the most recent discussion of the issue with the parties, there was an understanding that time would be permitted to pursue immunity status.  This appears appropriate, and the court’s orders also may have lulled plaintiffs and the other parties into believing that there was no necessity to file written opposition to this motion to lift the stay, which, in any case, appears premature.   
The motion accordingly is denied as premature, without prejudice to pursuing such relief if necessary once the criminal matters are resolved or continued for a reasonable time to permit plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to seek immunity.
 
RULING:
[No Opposition]
Motion for Order Lifting Stay and Permitting Discovery to Proceed is DENIED without prejudice.  If the criminal case regarding the shouting incident is concluded by verdict, plea deals, or is dismissed, the court will lift all stays.  Once the stay is lifted, the court will make 5-year rule determination unless a party needs such a 5-year rule determination earlier.  
Motion to Reopen Discovery was calendared in error.  There are no papers in the file seeking such relief other than the motion addressed above, which motions have not already been determined by the previous orders of the Court.  
 
GIVEN THE CORONAVIRUS CRISIS, AND TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE SOCIAL DISTANCING, UNTIL FURTHER ORDERED, DEPARTMENT D IS ENCOURAGING AUDIO OR VIDEO APPEARANCES 
Please make arrangements in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org, and scheduling a remote appearance.  Please note that LACourtConnect offers an audio-only appearance option at a current cost of $15.00 and a video appearance option at a cost of $23.00.   Counsel and parties (including self-represented litigants) are encouraged not to personally appear, unless they have obtained advance permission of the Court.  Anyone who appears in person for the hearing will be required to comply with strict social distancing measures, including, but not limited to, assigned seating, capacity limitations in the courtroom, designated waiting areas, and strictly enforced spacing in line to communicate with court staff.  If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or otherwise, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative. 

Case Number: BC617479    Hearing Date: November 08, 2019    Dept: NCD

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION FOR PARTIAL LIFTING OF DISCOVERY STAY

Calendar: 8

Date: 11/8/19

Case No: BC 617479 Trial Date: None Set

Case Name: Torosian, et al. v. Fitilichyan, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Armen Tashjian

Responding Party: Plaintiff Robert Torosian (No Opposition)

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Order lifting present stay on discovery for limited purpose of seeking discovery and deposition testimony from plaintiff Robert Torasian

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Plaintiffs Akop Torosian and Robert Torosian allege that in April of 2014, plaintiff Akop Torosian retained the services of defendant Arutyun Fitilchyan, a locksmith, to provide locksmith services at plaintiff’s residence in Glendale. When defendant failed to show up for a scheduled meeting, and plaintiff called defendant to find out his estimated time of arrival, defendant became upset, using profanity and abusive language. Plaintiff contacted defendant Ashot Mkhitaryan, defendant Fitilchyan’s apprentice, whom plaintiff knew, and informed him of the phone conversation with Fitilchyan. Defendant Mkhitaryan arranged for plaintiff to meet with defendant Fitilchyan that day, at the body shop owned by defendant Hrachya Gasparyan, where plaintiff was physically assaulted by defendants Gasparyan and Fitilchyan, but was able to flee the shop.

The complaint alleges that defendant Mkhitaryan then lured plaintiff Akop Torosian to return to the body shop to resolve the dispute amicably. Plaintiff contacted his brother, plaintiff Robert Torosian, to accompany him.

Upon arrival at the body shop, defendant Fitilchyan charged at plaintiff Robert Torosian and attempted to strike him with his fists, while defendant Gasparyan produced a handgun and shot plaintiff Robert Torosian in the lower abdomen. Defendants Fitilchyan and Gasparyan, and possibly other shooters, continued shooting at plaintiffs. In defense of his brother and himself, plaintiff Akop Torosian produced a firearm and returned fire, and Fitilchyan and Gasparyan were shot in the cross-fire. Plaintiff Akop Torosian called 911 and plaintiff Robert Torosian was transported to the hospital, while plaintiff Akop Torosian was detained pending a criminal investigation and released later that evening.

The complaint alleges that defendants Fitilchyan and Mkhitaryan, along with their counsel, moving defendant Armen Tashjian, and defendant Armen Jermakyan, conspired to extort money from plaintiff Akop Torosian, and used threats, intimidation and fear to force plaintiffs to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, and also came up with a plan to provide law enforcement officers with inaccurate statements which would result in criminal charges against plaintiffs, and force them to pay the sums demanded. Fitilchyan, with the counsel of defendant Tashjian, gave a false statement to law enforcement, which resulted in charges being filed against plaintiff Akop Torosian. No charges were filed against plaintiff Robert Torosian. Plaintiff Akop Torosian was released on bail. The complaint alleges that from November of 2014 through June of 2015, defendants continued to attempt to extort $2 million from plaintiffs, demanding this sum in exchange for defendants’ help in having the charges dropped against Akop Torosian.

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs informed the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office of the plot to extort money, and that after investigation, defendant Tashjian was arrested and charged with extortion, conspiracy and other charges. The investigation against the remaining defendants is ongoing. In November 2015, the charges against plaintiff Akop Torosian were dropped.

Plaintiffs’ spouses, plaintiffs Marina Fermanyan and Elda Madatyan, bring a cause of action for loss of consortium against all defendants.

ANALYSIS:

On February 27, 2019, the court stayed discovery in this and a related case, and permitted Fitilchyan and Gasparyan to file an anti-SLAPP motion.

Moving defendant Armen Tashjian previously filed a motion seeking to have the discovery stay lifted in this matter as to all parties with the exception of Armen Tashjian, Hrachya Gasparian and Arutyun Fitilchyan. The motion was heard on July 26, 2019, and was denied, the court observing that moving party had failed to show that he needed discovery “for any particular purpose, or what discovery he is proposing to conduct.”

The motion indicates that the court denied the motion, but did so without prejudice to a party bringing a more narrowly-tailored motion to lift discovery as to particular individual parties, although this is not reflected in the court’s minute order.

The motion argues that plaintiff Robert Torosian is not in a situation where he has fifth amendment rights implicated in the pending criminal action against Tashjian, and that Torosian he has been giving statements to the police in connection with the criminal matter, and is providing electronically stored information and documents in his possession to the prosecution. Defendant argues that further delay in reviewing and producing such documents, in particular the electronically-stored documents and the metadata pertaining thereto, could be lost, destroyed, or overwritten prior to production in the present matter, so that a deposition of Robert Torosian is necessary to avoid spoliation of evidence. There is also an argument that Robert Torosian had previously represented at Tashjian’s preliminary hearing in June of 2019 that he was in possession of the cellular phone used to record defendant Tashjian, and phones subpoenaed by Tashjian, and that Robert Torosian was ordered by the judge to preserve phones and turn them over for imaging. The motion seems to argue that since the hearing on the previous motion in this action, at a continued preliminary hearing on September 16, 2019, Robert Torosian appeared and reneged on his agreement to permit imaging of his phone. [Tashjian Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11-13]. The argument is that there is doubt as to whether Torosian is still in possession of these phones or can produce them if necessary.

The motion seeks that the court order that moving party be permitted to take the deposition of Robert Torosian, and also propound special interrogatories, form interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. None of this proposed discovery is submitted to the court.

The preliminary hearing transcripts suggest that there was some sort of informal agreement that phones would be turned over, the court ordered that they not be destroyed, stating to Torosian, “So make sure you know, preserve that phone. Do not destroy it. Do not do anything to erase it.” [Ex 4, p. 53: 18-24]. It appears that the matter was left with Tashjian to submit a proposed order on the examination of that phone, non-invasive, by an expert with Torosian present. The argument seems to be that at the continued hearing, Torosian withdrew his agreement, but the transcript submitted is again from the June 17, 2019 hearing, not the continued September hearing, and the court seemed to conclude that a subpoena would be necessary. [Ex. 5, p. 64]. It does not appear that there has been some recent change of heart, but that this developed at the June hearing, and there was never any order by the other court to turn over the phones.

In any case, it would appear that permitting discovery without moving party submitting the exact discovery requests and deposition topics to be covered remains overly broad, and does not narrowly address the specific issue here, which apparently could be addressed by an order of the court prohibiting any destruction or erasure of evidence in this matter, and potentially permitting a discovery request for telephones alleged to have recorded the incident giving rise to this matter. In addition it is highly likely that the police have obtained and preserved the plaintiff’s cell phone records.

It is not clear why there is no opposition to this motion, and it might be discussed at the hearing if the parties agree that it is time for some limited discovery to begin in this matter in connection with witnesses such as Robert Torosian without fifth amendment concerns. The court will permit the submission of a proposed protective order with respect to the preservation of evidence for the court’s signature in this matter, and to include cell phones and electronically stored information pertaining to this matter, and to include cell phones and electronically stored information pertaining to this matter. Also, there is no evidence to spoliation of evidence or any threat of spoliation of evidence.

RULING:

[No Opposition]

Defendant Armen Tashjian’s Motion for Partial Lifting of Discovery Stay is DENIED.

The motion again fails to submit the exact discovery sought to be propounded, to permit the court to determine if the proposed discovery will address the issues of concern raised by the motion, in effect, that evidence which should be preserved for use in this action may not be appropriately preserved.