Vardanyan v. Moroyan et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 25 Amended Discovery Dispute Joint Report #1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 *E-FILED: February 25, 2013* 3 4 5 6 NOT FOR CITATION 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 7 No. C12-01536 HRL [Dkt. No. 53] VIASPHERE INTERNATIONAL, INC., 12 Plaintiff, v. 13 ORDER RE AMENDED DISCOVERY DISPUTE JOINT REPORT #1 ARAM VARDANYAN, 14 Defendant. 15 16 / ARAM VARDANYAN, 17 No. C12-05645 HRL [Dkt. No. 25] Plaintiff, v. 18 19 20 ANTHONY MOROYAN; ALPHA VENTURES, LLC, Defendants. / 21 22 The parties disagree whether Aram Vardanyan should be deposed in Armenia (where he 23 resides) or here in the Northern District of California where both sides have lawsuits pending. 24 Viasphere International, Inc. (Viasphere) initially brought the matter to the court’s attention via 25 Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #1. That DDJR was not filed in compliance with the 26 undersigned’s Standing Order re Civil Discovery Disputes. The parties were directed to meet- 27 and-confer in good faith on the issue and, if necessary, to bring the matter before the court in a 28 jointly filed DDJR #1. 1 The parties have filed an amended DDJR #1, advising that they have complied with this 2 court’s standing order, but that they have not been able to resolve their disagreement over the 3 location of Vardanyan’s deposition. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without 4 oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ respective positions, the court 5 rules as follows: 6 A party generally is free to notice a deposition wherever it chooses. If the deponent 7 timely objects, however, the court may issue a protective order changing the place of the 8 deposition. Grey v. Continental Mktg. Assocs., Inc., 315 F. Supp. 826, 832 (N.D. Ga. 1970). 9 Vardanyan is correct that a defendant ordinarily must be deposed where he lives or works, “absent some unusual circumstance to justify putting the defendant to such inconvenience.” Id. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 But, Vardanyan is also a plaintiff here. And, “[c]ourts ordinarily presume that a plaintiff may 12 be deposed in the judicial district where the action was brought, inasmuch as the plaintiff, in 13 selecting the forum, has effectively consented to participation in legal proceedings there.” In re 14 Outsidewall Tire Litig., 267 F.R.D. 466, 471 (E.D Va. 2010). To overcome this presumption, 15 “a foreign plaintiff must persuasively demonstrate that requiring him to travel to the forum 16 district for his deposition would for physical or financial reasons, be practically impossible, or 17 that it would be otherwise fundamentally unfair.” Id. 18 Here, Vardanyan says that it will be expensive for him to travel here to be deposed. His 19 counsel and opposing counsel, however, are all located in California. The court finds that 20 having counsel travel to Armenia would likely be more expensive than if Vardanyan came here. 21 And, while Vardanyan now says that he is physically restricted from traveling, he has submitted 22 nothing to corroborate that assertion. Absent such evidence, Vardanyan is ordered to travel to 23 the Northern District of California to be deposed. If practicable, his deposition shall proceed on 24 March 1, 2013, as noticed by opposing counsel. If not, then Vardanyan’s deposition shall 25 proceed as soon as practicable thereafter, on a date and time available to both sides. 26 Viasphere’s, Moroyan’s, and Alpha Ventures’ request to withdraw their agreement to 27 participate in private mediation, and instead proceed with court-sponsored mediation, is denied. 28 It appears to this court that the parties have already invested significant time and resources 2 1 arranging for the mediation that is set to take place on March 4, 2013 with Judge Brazil. 2 Further, this court will defer to Judge Brazil’s decisions as to how that mediation should be 3 conducted. 4 5 SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2013 6 HOWARD R. LLOYD 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 5:12-cv-01536-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: 2 Ara Aroustamian 3 Helene Anastasia Simvoulakis 4 Stephen Donald Pahl 5 Varand Vartanian, 6 7 5:12-cv-05645-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to: 8 Ara Aroustamian 9 Helene Anastasia Simvoulakis Stephen Donald Pahl 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Varand Vartanian, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?