Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05616/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05616-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

VINCENT CASTILLO MARENTES, an 

individual, LIUDMELA BICHEGKUEVA, 

an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:15-cv-05616-LHK (HRL)

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE 

REPORT NO. 1

Re: Dkt. Nos. 44, 57

Vincent Marentes rear-ended Liudmela Bichegkueva while driving a tow truck owned by 

his employer, Extreme Towing. The parties undoubtedly are well familiar with the factual and 

procedural history of this case, and so this court will not recite those matters in detail here. In 

sum, Marentes claims that defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State 

Farm) failed to defend him in a personal injury lawsuit Bichegkueva filed against him in state 

court. Specifically, Marentes says that Kevin Cholakian (the attorney State Farm eventually 

appointed as Marentes’ defense counsel) abandoned him by arguing that there was no coverage 

under Marentes’ State Farm policy and by failing to challenge a default judgment against him. As 

part of a settlement of the state court action, Marentes agreed to assign to Liudmela his rights 

against State Farm. Marentes and Liudmela then filed the instant lawsuit against State Farm for 

Case 5:15-cv-05616-LHK Document 60 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 5
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

alleged breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, fraud and 

concealment, and violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200. The complaint 

was filed in state court, and State Farm removed the matter here, asserting diversity jurisdiction, 

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiffs subpoenaed Cholakian for a deposition and production of documents, and it was 

agreed that the deposition would proceed on Saturday, July 9, 2016. The present discovery 

dispute arises out of billing records that plaintiffs say they wanted and which Cholakian refused to 

produce. This court is told that Cholakian’s deposition began at 9:00 a.m.; and, following a halfhour lunch break, the examination continued through 3:00 p.m. when the court reporter said that 

she had to leave for another appointment. At that time, plaintiffs adjourned the deposition, with 

the examination to be continued another day. Plaintiffs’ counsel handed Cholakian a second 

(apparently unsigned) subpoena, requiring him to appear for deposition on July 19 and to produce 

documents, specifically including billing records.

Cholakian seeks an order quashing the second subpoena. He contends that the document 

requests in plaintiffs’ first subpoena were vague and poorly drafted and did not call for billing 

records. He believes that his deposition was adjourned under false pretenses so that plaintiffs 

could get a subpoena “do-over.” For their part, plaintiffs seek an order compelling Cholakian to 

produce his firm’s billing records re his insurance claim. In plaintiffs’ view, the billing records 

were fully encompassed by their first subpoena. They further contend that Cholakian was well 

aware before he appeared for deposition that those records were being requested because, among 

other things, he advised counsel beforehand that he would not produce them. Also, Marentes says 

that he has repeatedly requested that Cholakian’s firm produce the claim file, including time 

records.

On July 19, Cholakian brought the matter before this court via a unilaterally filed 

discovery dispute report, which stated that plaintiffs would separately file their portion of the 

report the next day. They didn’t. It was only after this court issued an interim order that plaintiffs 

filed their response to Cholakian’s report on August 9. Based on plaintiffs’ separate report, it 

appears that Cholakian gave them only 2 hours to provide their portion of the would-be joint 

Case 5:15-cv-05616-LHK Document 60 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 5
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

discovery brief---during a time when Cholakian reportedly was aware that plaintiffs’ counsel were 

conducting depositions in this case and also preparing briefing on defendant’s pending summary 

judgment motion. Additionally, plaintiffs say that even after Cholakian filed his unilateral report, 

they continued to attempt to resolve the matter informally (to no avail) and were intending to 

present the matter to this court (together with an issue on a different subpoena) sometime in late 

August, after plaintiffs’ lead counsel returns from a vacation in Fiji.

This court does not fault plaintiffs for their efforts to resolve this discovery dispute 

informally; and, indeed, parties are always encouraged to do so. However, leaving matters 

unresolved until sometime after counsel’s return from vacation is simply too late. Pursuant to this 

district’s Civil Local Rules and this court’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes, DDJRs 

may not be filed more than 7 days after the discovery cutoff---here, August 11. Civ. L.R. 37-3; 

Standing Order, Section D. Absent a court order, and with certain exceptions not applicable here, 

parties cannot stipulate around deadlines for matters that are required to be filed with the court. 

Civ. L.R. 6-1(b).

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the present dispute timely was filed, and because it appears that 

Cholakian did not give plaintiffs reasonable time to prepare their portion of the discovery report, 

this court will address the merits of the instant dispute. Having considered the arguments 

presented, this court rules as follows:

The Cholakian firm’s billing records are encompassed by the document requests in 

plaintiffs’ first subpoena. For example, Requests 1, 5, and 6 ask for “all writings between 

CHOLAKIAN and STATE FARM re Vincent Marentes and/or Claim No. 05-33P6-219”; “all 

writings between Cholakian and the Hayes Firm [State Farm’s litigation counsel] re Claim No. 05-

33P6-219”; and “all writings re Claim No. 05-33P6-219 and/or Vincent Marentes.” (Dkt. 57-1 at 

3). Although these requests are broadly worded, they are not so broad as to seek documents that 

are irrelevant or beyond the scope of permissible discovery. Indeed, plaintiffs contend that the 

invoices will show what work Cholakian did and when, and therefore are relevant to their 

allegation that the Cholakian firm conspired with State Farm and its counsel to deprive him of a 

defense. The billing records are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

Case 5:15-cv-05616-LHK Document 60 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 5
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

admissible evidence and are proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

The only other reason this court is told that Cholakian has not produced the requested time 

records is due to client privacy and confidentiality. Marentes, however, is the one requesting the 

records. And, plaintiffs say that State Farm has not asserted the attorney-client privilege as to the 

billing records and has already produced at least some of the requested invoices, telling plaintiffs 

that they will have to resolve disputes as to other invoices with Cholakian. On this record, this 

court sees no reason why the requested billing records should not be produced. Cholakian shall 

therefore produce the documents to plaintiffs forthwith.

Cholakian argues that his deposition is complete and that he should not be required to 

appear for a second one. However, the first examination apparently lasted only 5.5 hours. Unless 

otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may depose a witness for 7 hours (not 

including breaks). Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d). But, that is not to say that plaintiffs can take the full 7

hours to depose an individual when there is no purpose for it. Plaintiffs have not persuasively 

argued that the 7-hour limitation does not apply, notwithstanding that Cholakian did not produce 

the billing records the first time. Nor have they identified how much time (if any) they need 

beyond the presumptive 7-hour limit, much less justified any such amount. To the extent plaintiffs 

intend to complete Cholakian’s deposition, they have 1.5 hours remaining (not including breaks). 

Fact discovery having closed several weeks ago, under no circumstances should continuing with 

Cholakian’s deposition (if plaintiffs choose to do so) cause disruption to the presiding judge’s 

scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2016

HOWARD R. LLOYD

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05616-LHK Document 60 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 5
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5:15-cv-05616-LHK Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Brian J. Finn bfinn@cholakian.net

Cherie M. Sutherland csutherland@hayesscott.com, csinclaire@hayesscott.com

Jamie A. Radack jradack@hayesscott.com, acalderon@hayesscott.com

Jon-Marc Dobrin jmdobrinlaw@gmail.com, danejdurham1@comcast.net

Jordan S. Stanzler jstanzler@sfcfirm.com, jcurtiss@stanzlerlawgroup.com, 

jstanzler@stanzlerlawgroup.com, srodd@stanzlerlawgroup.com

Stephen M. Hayes shayes@hayesscott.com, dcorpus@hayesscott.com

Stephen P. Ellingson sellingson@hayesscott.com, acalderon@hayesscott.com

Case 5:15-cv-05616-LHK Document 60 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 5