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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WORDTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1971 MCE EFB

vs.

INTEGRATED NETWORK 

SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending for decision before this court are (1) plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant

Ehteram Ghodsian to respond to judgment interrogatories and production demands, and

plaintiff’s related request for sanctions, Dckt. No. 366; and (2) plaintiff’s motion to vacate or

modify the October 26, 2006 protective order entered into between plaintiff and defendants 

Integrated Network Solutions, Corp. (“INSC”), Nasser Khatemi, and Hamid Assadian, and

plaintiff’s related request for an order to preserve documents, Dckt. No. 367. The matters were

heard on this court’s law and motion calendar on March 24, 2010. Attorney Christian Martinez

appeared on behalf of plaintiff; attorney Kevin Davis appeared on behalf of INSC and Assadian;

no appearance was made on behalf of Ghodsian or Khatemi.

////

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 379 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 6
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

1

 The interrogatories ask Ghodsian to identify certain: bank accounts she maintains;

obligations she has incurred; personal property she owns; brokerage accounts she maintains;

lawsuits in which she is a party; domains she owns; transfers she has made; obligations in which

she is the obligee; businesses she owns; patents, trademarks, etc. which she owns; taxpayers ID

numbers she has held; persons who helped prepare responses to the interrogatories; persons with

knowledge or information to support the responses; assignments she has executed; safe deposit

boxes she holds; real property she owns; trips she has taken outside of the U.S.; transactions she

has entered into with Nancy Ulrich; and her current net worth. Dckt. No. 366-5.

2

 The inspection demands seek to inspect writings which refer to, reflect, or relate to

certain: bank accounts Ghodsian maintains, obligations Ghodsian has incurred, personal

property Ghodsian owns, brokerage accounts Ghodsian maintains, lawsuits in which Ghodsian is

a party, domains Ghodsian owns, transfers Ghodsian has made, obligations Ghodsian has, real

property Ghodsian owns, patents or trademarks Ghodsian owns, Ghodsian’s taxpayer numbers,

assignments Ghodsian has executed, safe deposit boxes Ghodsian has held, wages or other

payments received by Ghodsian, and contracts to which Ghodsian is a signatory; as well as

writings supporting Ghodsian’s responses to the interrogatories, and writings which refer,

reflect, or relate to Plastic & Metal Center or to communications Ghodsian had with Nancy

Ulrich regarding Ghodsian’s property or this case. Dckt. No. 366-5.

2

I. MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Background

In November 2008, a jury found that defendants INSC, Assadian, and Khatemi willfully

infringed plaintiff’s patents and awarded plaintiff $250,000 in royalties. Dckt. No. 244. On

January 15, 2009, the district judge trebled the verdict and awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees. 

Dckt. No. 249. On April 13, 2009, judgment was entered against INSC, Assadian, and Khatemi

for a total over $1.3 million. Dckt. No. 274.

In July 2009, plaintiff noticed a motion for default judgment against defendant Ghodsian,

and on October 6, 2009, the district judge granted the motion and entered default judgment

against Ghodsian. Dckt. Nos. 304, 336. The district judge stated that the judgment previously

entered against the other defendants should be amended to reflect judgment in the amount of

$250,000.00 jointly and severally against Ghodsian. Dckt. No. 336.

On October 29, 2009, plaintiff propounded on Ghodsian twenty judgment interrogatories1

and twenty inspection demands2 by mailing her the discovery requests by both certified and

regular mail. Martinez Decl., Dckt. No. 366-3, ¶ 4. Ghodsian failed to provide any response to

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 379 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 6
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

3

the discovery. Id. ¶ 5. 

On December 3, 2009, plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Ghodsian by letter

regarding her failure to respond, and enclosed a courtesy copy of the discovery. Id. ¶ 6. 

Ghodsian did not respond to the letter. Id. On December 21, 2009, plaintiff again attempted to

meet and confer by letter, enclosing a second courtesy copy of the discovery. Id. ¶ 7. Ghodsian

again did not respond. Id. 

Thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel. Dckt. No. 366. After Ghodsian

failed to file a response to the motion, the undersigned continued the hearing on the motion,

directed Ghodsian to file a response, and ordered Ghodsian to show cause why she should not be

imposed for her failure to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the

motion. Dckt. No. 370. Ghodsian did not file a response to the motion or to the order to show

cause and did not appear at the rescheduled hearing.

B. Analysis

In proceedings in aid of a judgment or execution, a judgment creditor may obtain

discovery from any person, including a judgment debtor, as provided in the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or “by the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

69(b). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 authorizes a party to propound interrogatories and

Rule 34 authorizes a party to request to inspect documents. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34. Additionally,

California Code of Civil Procedure provides that a judgment creditor may propound written

interrogatories and inspection demands to a judgment debtor requesting information to aid in

enforcement of the money judgment. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 708.020(a) (“The judgment

creditor may propound written interrogatories to the judgment debtor . . . requesting information

to aid in enforcement of the money judgment.”); 708.030(a) (“The judgment creditor may

demand that any judgment debtor produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone

acting on that party’s behalf, to inspect and to copy a document that is in the possession, custody,

or control of the party on whom the demand is made . . . if the demand requests information to

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 379 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 6
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

4

aid in enforcement of the money judgment.”).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, upon notice, a party may move for an order

compelling disclosure or discovery after a good faith attempt to confer with a party failing to

make disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 251. 

Additionally, California Civil Procedure Code sections 708.020 and 708.030 provide that when a

responding party fails to answer an interrogatory or request for inspection authorized by those

statutes, post judgment discovery may be enforced in the same manner as discovery in a civil

action. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 708.020, 708.030.

Here, after obtaining a judgment against Ghodsian, plaintiff properly propounded several

interrogatories and requests for inspection of documents on Ghodsian. The requests were

properly served on Ghodsian by certified mail and regular mail, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 5(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff moved to compel Ghodsian’s responses to the discovery at issue

only after several attempts to meet and confer in good faith and after receiving no discovery

responses from Ghodsian. Ghodsian failed to file an opposition to the motion and did not appear

at the hearing on the motion. Therefore, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion to compel

Ghodsian to respond to his discovery requests should be granted.

C. Sanctions

Plaintiff contends that Ghodsian’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s judgment discovery

required plaintiff to file the motion to compel, resulting in additional fees and costs for which

plaintiff should be compensated. Accordingly, plaintiff requests sanctions against Ghodsian in

the amount of $562.50 (based on an hourly rate of $225 times 2.5 hours). Dckt. No. 366-3, ¶ 8.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(1)(A) provides that a court “may, on motion, order

sanctions if: . . . a party, after being properly served with interrogatories under Rule 33 or a

request for inspection under Rule 34, fails to serve its answers, objections, or written response.” 

Rule 37(d)(3) further provides that “the court must require the party failing to act, the attorney

advising that party, or both to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused by

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 379 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 6
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

5

the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of

expenses unjust.” See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (providing that if a motion to compel is

granted, unless certain exceptions are present, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be

heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney

advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the

motion, including attorney’s fees.”).

Because Ghodsian completely failed to respond to plaintiff’s discovery requests, and the

court does not find that such failure was substantially justified or that other circumstances make

an award or expenses to plaintiff unjust, Ghodsian will be ordered to pay plaintiff the reasonable

expenses incurred in making this motion, including attorney’s fees. Ghodsian had an

opportunity to be heard regarding plaintiff’s request for sanctions, but failed to appear at the

March 24, 2010 hearing. The court finds that plaintiff’s total expense amount of $562.50, based

on an hourly rate of $225 times 2.5 hours, is reasonable. 

II. MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

As stated on the record, and for the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff’s motion to

vacate or modify the October 26, 2006 protective order entered into between plaintiff and

defendants INSC, Khatemi, and Assadian, Dckt. No. 367, is denied. 

III. MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO PRESERVE DOCUMENTS

As stated on the record, and for the reasons stated on the record, plaintiff’s request for an

order to preserve documents, Dckt. No. 367, is granted. Defendants shall preserve the

documents at issue until plaintiff has completed its inspection of the documents. As long as

plaintiff provides at least three days’ notice to defendants of its intent to inspect the documents at

a particular date and time, the documents shall be made available to plaintiff’s attorneys (and/or

any other individuals who are authorized to access the documents in accordance with the

October 26, 2006 protective order) for inspection any time during regular business hours until

plaintiff’s inspection of the documents is complete. If the inspection is not completed within

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 379 Filed 03/25/10 Page 5 of 6
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

6

thirty days, plaintiff shall reimburse defendants the costs of storing the documents in their

current location beyond the thirty day period.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel Ghodsian to respond to plaintiff’s judgment

interrogatories and production demands, Dckt. No. 366, is granted; 

2. Defendant Ghodsian shall respond to plaintiff’s judgment interrogatories and

production demands within fourteen days from the filing date of this order; 

3. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions against Ghodsian, Dckt. No. 366, is granted; 

4. Defendant Ghodsian shall, no later than thirty days from the filing date of this order,

reimburse plaintiff for its expenses incurred in making its motion to compel, in the total amount

of $562.50;

5. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate or modify the October 26, 2006 protective order, Dckt.

No. 367, is denied; and

6. Plaintiff’s motion for an order to preserve documents, Dckt. No. 367, is granted. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 25, 2010.

Case 2:04-cv-01971-TLN-EFB Document 379 Filed 03/25/10 Page 6 of 6