{Converted to html. The PDF is the
controlling document. JM}
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Edgar C. Smith, Esq.
Nevada Bar No. 5506
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
(702) 475-7964; Fax: (702) 946-1345
yli@wrightlegal.net
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Fred Sadri, both in his individual capacity and as Trustee for The Star Living Trust, dated April 14, 1997; Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, in their individual capacities as well as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No.: N-16-50644-btb
CHAPTER 15
Adv. No. 17-05016-btb
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JED MARGOLIN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
In re: JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN,
Debtor.
FRED SADRI, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STAR LIVING TRUST, DATED APRIL 14, 1997; RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI, ASMANAGING TRUSTEES FOR KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JED MARGOLIN; JAZI GHOLAMREZA ZANDIAN; and all other parties claiming an interest in real properties described in this action,
Defendants.
PATRICK CANET,
Counterclaimant,
vs.
FRED SADRI INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS
Page 1 of 16
CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE STAR LIVING TRUSTAND RAY KOROGHLI INDIVIDUALLY, AND RAY KOROGHLI AND SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI AS
MANAGING TRUSTEES OF THE KOROGHLI MANAGEMENT TRUST,
Counter-Defendants.
PATRICK CANET,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
JED MARGOLIN,
Cross-Defendant.
COME NOW, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Fred Sadri, as Trustee for The Star Living Trust, dated April 14, 1997; Ray Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq., and Yanxiong Li, Esq., of the law firm of Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, and hereby submit their responses to Defendant Jed Margolin’s (“Margolin”) First Set of Requests for Production of Documents.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The Responses herein to Margolin’s Requests for Production of Documents (the “Responses”) are subject to the following general objections (the “General Objections”). The General Objections may be specifically referred to in the Responses for the purpose of clarity. The failure to specifically incorporate a General Objection, however, should not be construed as a waiver of the General Objections.
1. Plaintiffs object to all Requests for Production of Documents based on the assertion that all Requests for Production of Documents are unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence related to issues of fact and law asserted in its Complaint.
Page 2 of 16
2. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent they seek information and documents that are currently in Margolin’s possession, custody, or control, or are, by reason of public filing, or otherwise, readily accessible to Margolin.
3. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent they seek to require Plaintiffs to search for or produce information and documents which are not currently in their possession, custody, or control, or to identify or describe persons, entities, or events that are not known to them on the grounds that such request would seek to require more of Plaintiffs than any obligation imposed by law, would subject them to unreasonable and undue annoyance, oppression, burden, and expense, and would seek to impose upon Plaintiffs an obligation to investigate or discover information or materials from third-parties or sources that are equally accessible to Margolin.
4. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission or waiver by Plaintiffs of: (a) their rights respecting admissibility, competency, relevance, privilege, materiality, and authenticity of any information provided in the Responses, any documents identified therein, or the subject matter thereof; and (b) their rights to object to the use of any information provided in the Responses, any document identified therein, or the subject matter contained in the Responses during a subsequent proceeding, including the trial of this or any other action.
5. The Responses are made solely for the purposes of, and in relation to, this litigation.
6. Plaintiffs object to the Requests to the extent they seek documents and information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or seeks the work product of Counsel.
7. Plaintiffs may have not completed: (a) their investigation of facts, witnesses, or documents relating to this case, (b) discovery in this action, (c) their analysis of available data, and (d) their preparations for trial. Thus, although a good faith effort has been made to supply pertinent information where the same has been requested, it is not possible in some instances for unqualified Responses to be made to the Discovery Requests. Further, the Responses are necessarily made without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to produce evidence of subsequently discovered facts, witnesses, or documents, as well as any new theories or
Page 3 of 16
contentions that Plaintiffs may adopt. The Responses are further given without prejudice to Plaintiffs’ right to provide information concerning facts, witnesses, or documents omitted by the Responses as a result of oversight, inadvertence, good faith error, or mistake.
In addition to all standing objections stated above, Plaintiffs respond to Margolin’s Requests for Production of Documents as follows:
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
REQUEST NO. 1:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between the PLAINTIFFS, or any of them, Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 1:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
REQUEST NO. 2:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between SADRI and RAY KOROGHLI Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 2:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
Page 4 of 16
REQUEST NO. 3:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between SADRI and SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 3:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
REQUEST NO. 4:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between SADRI and KMT Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 4:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
REQUEST NO. 5:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between RAY KOROGHLI and SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by
Page 5 of 16
MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 5:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
REQUEST NO. 6:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between RAY KOROGHLI and KMT Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 6:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
REQUEST NO. 7:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between SATHSOWI T. KOROGHLI and KMT Relating To MARGOLIN, any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN, any patent owned by MARGOLIN, and any lawsuit between MARGOLIN and ZANDIAN, from December 2007 to present.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 7:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks production that is neither
Page 6 of 16
relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs and that is more than a decade prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of this Adversary Proceeding.
REQUEST NO. 8:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between any of the PLAINTIFFS Relating To any purchase or potential purchase of any court judgment MARGOLIN has against ZANDIAN
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 8:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to time and scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs.
REQUEST NO. 9:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that Relate to ZANDIAN receiving any payment of any money or other consideration from “Pico Holdings.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 9:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to time and scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs. This Request is further objected to on the grounds that it seeks production of confidential proprietary documents or communications.
REQUEST NO. 10:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that Relate to any payment of any money or other consideration from any PLAINTIFF to ZANDIAN.
Page 7 of 16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 10:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Request on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to time and scope, and seeks production that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case. This Interrogatory is also unduly burdensome as it seeks documents or things outside of possession and control of Plaintiffs. This Request is further objected to on the grounds that it seeks production of confidential proprietary documents or communications.
REQUEST NO. 11:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support Your FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION contained in Your COMPLAINT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 11:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see documents served with Plaintiffs’ Initial Disclosures and supplements thereto, especially WFZ 57-173 (Judgment Confirming Arbitration Award); 174-193 (Stipulated Judgment in Zandian Action); 194-199 (Quitclaim Deed to Koroghli Management Trust); 200-204 (Margolin’s Default Judgment); 217234 (Assessor Historical Value); 235-256 (Pleadings from Appeal of Zandian Action).
Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 12:
Produce
all Documents and things Relating To any
non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support Your SECOND
CAUSE OF ACTION contained in Your COMPLAINT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 12:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request No. 11 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
Page 8 of 16
REQUEST NO. 13:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support Your THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION contained in Your COMPLAINT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 13:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request No. 11 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 14:
Produce
all Documents and things Relating To any
non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support the PRAYER
for relief contained in Your COMPLAINT.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 14:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request No. 11 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 15:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 23 of Your COMPLAINT that “Margolin did not properly record a copy of the Default Judgment at the Washoe County Recorder’s Office in accordance with NRS 17.150 prior to executing upon Debtor’s interest in the Property”.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 15:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see “JM_0496-521 Ex 8 - Default Judgment recorded” served with Margolin’s Initial Disclosure of Documents and supplements thereto. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 16:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 24 of Your COMPLAINT that “Margolin did not
Page 9 of 16
cause a copy of the Notice of Sale to be served in accordance with NRS 21.130 prior to executing upon Debtor’s interest in the Property.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 16:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Margolin’s Responses to Request for Production Nos. 5 and 6, and documents referenced therein. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 17:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 34 of Your COMPLAINT that “Margolin did not comply with all mailing and noticing requirements stated in NRS 17.150 and 21.130”.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 17:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request No. 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 18:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 38 of Your COMPLAINT that “The Sheriff’s Sales violated Plaintiffs’ rights to due process because they were not given proper, adequate notice and the opportunity to protect their interest in title to the Property.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 18:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 19:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 39 of Your COMPLAINT that “The Sheriff’s Sales were an invalid sale and could not have extinguished Plaintiffs’ interest because of defects in the notices given to Plaintiffs, or their predecessors, agents, servicers or trustees, if any.”
Page 10 of 16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 19:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 20:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 40 of Your COMPLAINT that “Alternatively, the Sheriff’s Sales themselves were valid but Margolin took his interest subject to Plaintiffs’ interest.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 20:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 21:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 43 of Your COMPLAINT that “The Sheriff’s Sales were not commercially reasonable and were not done in good faith, in light of the sale price and the market value of the Property, and the errors alleged above.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 21:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 22:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 44 of Your COMPLAINT that “The circumstances of the Sheriff’s Sales breached the Margolin’s obligations of good faith and his duty to act in a commercially reasonable manner.”
Page 11 of 16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 22:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 23:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 45 of Your COMPLAINT that “The Sheriff’s Sales by which Margolin took his interest were commercially unreasonable if they extinguished Plaintiffs’ title interest in the Property.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 23:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 24:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 46 of Your COMPLAINT that “The circumstances of the Sheriff’s Sales of the Property prevent Margolin from being deemed a bona fide purchaser for value.”
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 24:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 25:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications that support paragraph 47 of Your COMPLAINT that “Margolin has actual, constructive or inquiry notice of Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property, which prevents Margolin from being deemed a bona fide purchaser for value.”
Page 12 of 16
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 25:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Response to Request No. 11, above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
REQUEST NO. 26:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between the PLAINTIFFS, or any of them, and CANET, Relating To any real property that is the subject of this adversary proceeding.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 26:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case.
Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs respond: other than pleadings and disclosures served on Margolin in this Adversary Proceeding, no documents or communications responsive to this Request.
REQUEST NO. 27:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between the PLAINTIFFS, or any of them, and CANET, Relating To any change in ownership of any real property that is the subject of this adversary proceeding.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 27:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case.
Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs respond: other than pleadings and disclosures served on Margolin in this Adversary Proceeding, no documents or communications responsive to this Request.
Page 13 of 16
REQUEST NO. 28:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any written or oral agreements between the PLAINTIFFS, or any of them, and CANET, Relating To any real property that is the subject of this adversary proceeding.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 28:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case.
Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs respond: not aware of any documents responsive to this Request.
REQUEST NO. 29:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between the PLAINTIFFS, or any of them, and CANET, Relating To MARGOLIN.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 29:
In addition to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overly broad and vague as to scope, and seeks information that is neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of this case.
Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs respond: other than pleadings and disclosures served on Margolin in this Adversary Proceeding, no documents or communications responsive to this Request.
REQUEST NO. 30:
Produce all Documents and things Relating To any non-privileged Documents, Writings, and Communications between the PLAINTIFFS, or any of them, and CANET, Relating To this adversary proceeding.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 30:
Subject to the General Objections, Plaintiffs further object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks documents equally accessible and
Page 14 of 16
already in possession of Margolin. This Request serves no purpose other than to harass Plaintiffs.
Without waiving any objections, Plaintiffs respond: other than pleadings and disclosures served on Margolin in this Adversary Proceeding, no documents or communications responsive to this Request.
REQUEST NO. 31:
Produce
all Documents and things Relating To any and all
responses contained in Your responses to Defendant Jed Margolin’s
First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST NO. 31:
Subject to General Objections, Plaintiffs respond: see Responses to Request Nos. 11, 15 and 16 above. Investigation is continuing and this Response will be supplemented if and when appropriate.
DATED this 22nd day of February, 2018.
WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
/s/ Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Dana Jonathon Nitz, Esq.
Yanxiong Li, Esq.
Tel: (702) 475-7964
Fax: (702) 946-1345
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Fred Sadri, both in his individual capacity and as Trustee for The Star Living Trust, dated April 14, 1997; Ray
Koroghli and Sathsowi T. Koroghli, in their individual capacities as well as Managing Trustees for Koroghli Management Trust
Page 15 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am an employee of WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP, and that service of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT JED
MARGOLIN’S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS was made on this 22nd day of February, 2018, through the CM/ECF Electronic Filing system, and/or by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail, addressed as follows:
Adam McMillen, Esq..
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Attorney for Jed Margolin
Jeffrey L. Hartman, Esq.
HARTMAN & HARTMAN
Attorney for Patrick Canet, Foreign Representative and Jazi Gholamreza Zandian
/s/ Kelli Wightman
An Employee of WRIGHT, FINLAY & ZAK, LLP
Page 16 of 16