OPPOSITION to MOTION in Limine to Admit Evidence Inextricably Intertwined with the… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 420)

Summary

Defendant Edvard Paronyan, through counsel Michael G. Freedman, joins Richard Ayvazyan's opposition to the government's Motion in Limine #2 to admit evidence inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses, in No. 20-CR-579(A)-SVW (C.D. Cal.), Document 420, filed 06/04/21, with a hearing date of June 14, 2021 before Hon. Stephen V. Wilson. His supplemental memorandum argues that he is not charged with using fraudulent or synthetic identities or business names, or with aggravated identity theft, so that evidence has nothing to do with him. He says the evidence is not admissible against him under Rule 404(b) and would cause unfair prejudice under Rule 403. If it is admitted against other defendants, he asks for a limiting instruction.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

1 
EDVARD PARONYAN’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 
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
Michael G. Freedman (State Bar No. 281279) 
THE FREEDMAN FIRM PC 
800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1050 
Los Angeles, California  90017 
Telephone: (213) 816-1700 
Facsimile: (213) 816-1706 
Email: Michael@thefreedmanfirm.com 
 
Attorney for Defendant Edvard Paronyan 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
EDVARD PARONYAN, 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No.: 20-CR-579(A)-SVW 
DEFENDANT EDVARD 
PARONYAN’S JOINDER IN 
DEFENDANT RICHARD 
AYVAZYAN’S OPPOSITION TO 
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN 
LIMINE #2 TO ADMIT EVIDENCE 
INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED 
WITH THE CHARGED 
OFFENSES; SUPPLEMENTAL 
MEMORANDUM 
Hon. Stephen V. Wilson 
Hearing Date:   June 14, 2021 
Time:
11:00 a.m.
 
 
Defendant Edvard Paronyan, by and through his counsel of record, Michael 
G. Freedman, hereby joins in Defendant Richard Ayvazyan’s opposition to 
government’s motion in limine no. 2 to admit evidence inextricably intertwined 
with the charged offenses, and provides the attached supplemental memorandum.   
Dated: June 4, 2021 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
/s/ Michael G. Freedman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael G. Freedman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edvard Paronyan 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 420     Filed 06/04/21     Page 1 of 4   Page ID
#:4553

 
2 
EDVARD PARONYAN’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 
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
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM 
 
Defendant Edvard Paronyan joins Defendant Richard Ayvazyan’s opposition 
to government’s motion in limine no. 2 to admit evidence inextricably intertwined 
with the charged offenses and respectfully urges the Court to deny that motion for 
all the reasons stated therein.  Additionally, Mr. Paronyan provides this 
supplemental memorandum discussing several additional reasons pertaining to Mr. 
Paronyan specifically that further justify denial of the motion and/or the reading of 
a limiting instruction to the jury in the event any such evidence is admitted against 
other defendants, which it should not be. 
 
The government’s theory of the case is a loan fraud scheme using fraudulent 
or synthetic identities and business names.  The government thus seeks to admit 
fraudulent identity evidence that it claims is inextricably intertwined with that 
scheme to obtain loans using fraudulent or synthetic identities and business names.  
But Mr. Paronyan is not charged with using fraudulent or synthetic identities or 
business names, only with fraudulently obtaining loans in his own name and the 
real name of his legitimate business.  Mr. Paronyan was charged in the First 
Superseding Indictment with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, wire 
fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering conspiracy.  Importantly, Mr. Paronyan is 
not charged with any counts of aggravated identity theft.  Even crediting, 
arguendo, the government’s theory that fraudulent identity evidence is inextricably 
intertwined with the allegations against the other defendants, that evidence has 
nothing to do with Mr. Paronyan or the charges against him.  The government’s 
motion provides no argument to the contrary.  Most of the government’s motion is 
concerned with evidence possessed by and found at locations allegedly tied to 
other defendants, but not Mr. Paronyan.  Indeed, the government’s entire motion 
makes only a single passing reference to Mr. Paronyan (p. 15, line 6) with respect 
to certain payroll records.  Evidence regarding fraudulent businesses and identities 
simply is not inextricably intertwined with the charges against Mr. Paronyan. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 420     Filed 06/04/21     Page 2 of 4   Page ID
#:4554

 
3 
EDVARD PARONYAN’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 
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
 
Nor is the evidence admissible against Mr. Paronyan under Rule 404(b) 
because the fraudulent identity evidence does not tend to prove Mr. Paronyan’s 
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, and 
lack of accident in allegedly submitting fraudulent loan applications in his real 
name and in the name of his legitimate business.  Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). 
 
Furthermore, even if such evidence were relevant and otherwise admissible, 
which it is not, its admittance would cause substantial prejudice to Mr. Paronyan 
and should be excluded under Rule 403.  The critical material fact for the jury to 
decide in determining whether Mr. Paronyan is guilty of the charged conspiracies 
is whether the government can prove any evidentiary link between Mr. Paronyan’s 
conduct and that of the other defendants.  To allow the government to admit 
inflammatory evidence against Mr. Paronyan even though it has nothing to do with 
him would unfairly lead the jury to believe that Mr. Paronyan must be connected to 
such evidence and thus the conspiracy.  This would unfairly ease the government’s 
burden of proof and place Mr. Paronyan in jeopardy of being convicted not based 
on evidence against him, but solely based on evidence admitted against other 
defendants that is irrelevant as to him.  Any probative value of the evidence as to 
Mr. Paronyan therefore “is substantially outweighed by the prejudicial impact” of 
its admittance.  Fed. R. Evid. 403; United States v. Bailey, 696 F.3d 794, 799 (9th 
Cir. 2012).    
  
In the event the Court were to allow the government to introduce the 
evidence at issue in its motion, which it should not, the Court should read a 
limiting instruction to the jury making clear that the evidence is only being 
admitted as to certain defendants, not Mr. Paronyan, and should not be considered 
as evidence against Mr. Paronyan.  See Fed. R. Evid. 105 (“If the court admits 
evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose--but not against another 
party or for another purpose--the court, on timely request, must restrict the 
evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly”); see also United 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 420     Filed 06/04/21     Page 3 of 4   Page ID
#:4555

 
4 
EDVARD PARONYAN’S JOINDER IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN LIMINE 
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
States v. Rrapi, 175 F.3d 742, 749 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Although Judge George 
thought the evidence was admissible to show context or was “inextricably 
intertwined” with the charged crime, he gave a limiting instruction anyway. There 
is nothing wrong with such an alternative ruling”) (citation omitted). 
 
For all the foregoing reasons and those discussed in Defendant Richard 
Ayvazyan’s opposition, the Court should deny the government’s motion in limine, 
or, in the alternative, read a limiting instruction to the jury as to Mr. Paronyan.  
 
Dated: June 4, 2021 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
/s/ Michael G. Freedman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael G. Freedman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edvard Paronyan 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 420     Filed 06/04/21     Page 4 of 4   Page ID
#:4556

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.420.0.pdf

Size

192,804 bytes

SHA-256

f6986b0c701a4953adf4b70fd4dd0c1e59bf14ab06a7112a997e471b7b479172

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.813904.420.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)