Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05878/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05878-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE FLORES, CONNIE FLORES ) CV-F-99-5878 AWI DLB

)

) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

) COMPEL

) [DOC 492]

Plaintiffs, )

)

 vs. )

)

DDJ, INC., et al., )

)

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

On February 4, 2008, plaintiff Joe Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed the present motion to compel

production of documents. The motion was heard on February 29, 2008 before the undersigned. Joe

Flores appeared in pro se. Henry Nunez appeared for the Chapter 7 Trustee; Russell VanRozebroom

appeared for Judith Yeramian; David Jenkins appeared for Dennis Vartan and Ralph Swansen

appeared for Victoria Hagobian.

BACKGROUND

On June 23, 1999, plaintiffs Joe Flores and Connie Flores sued defendants DDJ, Inc. and

DDJ, LLC (“Defendant Entities”) for damages alleging violations of PACA and state law. A Jury

trial was held in July 2003. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs and the court entered judgment

on March 11, 2004. On September 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion to add judgment debtors

Dennis Hagobian, Dennis Vartan, Victoria Hagobian, Judith Yeramian, W.D. Farming, LLC, the

Yeramian Trust and the Vartan Trust. Prior to the Court ruling on the motion to add judgment

debtors, the Defendant Entities filed bankruptcy. On January 10, 2005, the Court entered an order

vacating the hearing date on Plaintiffs’ motion and staying the action pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). 

Case 1:99-cv-05878-AWI-BAM Document 520 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

After resolution of the bankruptcy stay, the Court reset Plaintiffs’ motion to add judgment debtors. 

On November 30, 2007, the Court denied the motion. On January 15, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a motion

for reconsideration, which is still pending.

On December 12, 2007, Plaintiff Joe Flores propounded requests for production of

documents on the Defendant Entities. In addition to the Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff served the

discovery on Dennis Vartan and his attorney; Ralph Swanson, attorney for Victoria Hagobian; and

Russell VanRozebroom, attorney for Judith Yeramian.

Plaintiff contends that “[j]udgment debtor DDJ Entities by and through their officers, failed

to respond by the due date of January 14, 2008.” On January 22, 2008, Plaintiff served a “meet and

confer” letter on “DDJ entities officers and/or their attorneys of record.” Plaintiff received a

response from Victoria Hagobian’s attorney indicating that she would not be responding to the

discovery. Plaintiff filed this motion on February 4, 2008 and an amended points and authorities on

February 5, 2008. On February 15, 2008, Victoria Hagobian filed an opposition to the motion; on

February 19, 2008, Dennis Vartan filed a declaration in opposition to the motion; on February 20,

2008, counsel for Judith Yeramian filed a declaration in opposition to the motion; and on February

25, 2008, counsel for the trustee filed a declaration in reply to the opposition. Plaintiff filed a reply

to the opposition and declaration on February 26, 2008. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil procedure 34(a)(1)(A) provides:

a) In General. A party may serve on any other party a request within

the scope of Rule 26(b):

(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to

inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding

party's possession, custody, or control:

(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information--

including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound

recordings, images, and other data or data compilations--stored in any

medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if

necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably

usable form;

Case 1:99-cv-05878-AWI-BAM Document 520 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Pursuant to Rule 34, Plaintiff seeks documents regarding the assets of the responding parties

which are identified in the discovery as DDJ, Inc. and DDJ, LLC, the Defendants Entities. However,

Plaintiff served the discovery on several individuals whom he believes are officers of the Defendant

Entities and he seeks an order compelling responses to the discovery from these individuals.

Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Rule 34 requests cannot be directed to officers, directors,

managing agents, employees, or related entities of parties. Nevertheless, such requests require

production of evidence in the party’s possession, custody or control, which encompass evidence held

by affiliated persons and entities. Here, the responding parties are entities in Bankruptcy and the

Chapter 7 Trustee has responded that he does not have any documents responsive to Plaintiff’s

requests in his possession, custody or control. Plaintiff has therefore received responses to the

discovery from the Defendant Entities to which the discovery was directed. Rule 34 requires no

more. 

As discussed at the hearing, the proper device for obtaining discovery from non-parties is a

Rule 45 subpoena. Indeed, a Rule 45 subpoena is the only method by which information may be

obtained directly from a nonparty. See Adv. Comm. Note on 1991 Amendment to FRCP 45. After

discussion, counsel for Victoria Hagobian and Dennis Vartan agreed to accept service of Rule 45

subpoenas on behalf of their clients, should it be determined that such discovery is proper in this

case. Plaintiff was also advised by counsel for the Trustee that he planned to pursue the depositions

of the same individuals in the Bankruptcy case. Plaintiff is advised that he should confer with the

Trustee regarding these depositions to avoid duplication of efforts and unnecessary costs to the

individuals involved.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents is HEREBY

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-05878-AWI-BAM Document 520 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 3