Ex Parte Application for Order for Protective Order — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 65, C.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 65 · 2020-12-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ (Cal. Bar No. 251120) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Major Frauds Section 
1100 United States Courthouse 
312 North Spring Street 
Los Angeles, California 90012 
Telephone: (213) 894-6683 
Facsimile: (213) 894-6269 
E-mail: 
Julian.L.Andre@usdoj.gov 
 
DANIEL A. KAHN 
Acting Chief, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 
1400 New York Avenue NW, 3rd Floor 
Washington, DC 20530 
Telephone: (202) 302-0539 
Facsimile: (202) 514-0152 
E-mail: 
Christopher.Fenton@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
RICHARD AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Richard Avazian” and 
    “Iuliia Zhadko,” 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN, 
  aka “Marietta Abelian” and     
      “Viktoria Kauichko,” 
ARTUR AYVAZYAN, 
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” and 
TAMARA DADYAN, 
 
Defendants. 
 No. CR 20-579-SVW 
 
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A 
PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING 
DISCOVERY CONTAINING PERSONAL 
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, ACCESS 
DEVICE MATERIALS, AND PRIVACY ACT 
INFORMATION 
 
[PROPOSED] ORDER FILED 
CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH 
 
  
 
  
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 1 of 19   Page ID #:379

 
 
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
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1), 
plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of 
record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of 
California, Assistant United States Attorney Julian L. André, and  
Department of Justice Trial Attorney Christopher Fenton, hereby 
applies ex parte for a protective order regarding discovery 
containing personal identifying information, unauthorized and 
counterfeit access devices, and privacy act information. 
The proposed protective order is necessary so that the 
government can begin producing discovery to defense counsel in this 
matter.  The discovery in this COVID-19-related fraud and identity 
theft case contains an extensive volume of personal identifying 
information (“PII”) of third-parties, witnesses, and victims.  The 
discovery also includes significant volumes of unauthorized or 
counterfeit access devices, including social security numbers, 
employee identification numbers, drivers’ license numbers, and bank 
and credit card numbers, some of which was used to perpetrate the 
alleged fraud or which could be used to engage in additional 
fraudulent conduct.  Producing this sensitive information without 
limitation risks the privacy and security of victims, other third-
parties, and the public in general.  Moreover, allowing the 
defendants in this case, two of whom have prior felony fraud 
convictions in this district, to possess such PII and access devices 
would pose a significant risk of harm to victims, other third-
parties, and the public in general.  The proposed stipulation will 
ensure that defendants’ counsel can access the discovery and review 
it with the defendants, while preventing the defendants from 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 2 of 19   Page ID #:380

 
 
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
possessing and improperly using this sensitive and confidential 
information for improper or illegal purposes. 
This application is based upon attached the declaration of 
Assistant United States Attorney Julian L. André, the concurrently 
filed proposed protective order, the files and records in this case, 
and such further evidence and argument as the Court may permit. 
On November 30, 2020, the government provided counsel for each 
defendant with a proposed stipulation regarding a protective order in 
this case.  The government conferred with counsel for defendant 
RICHARD AYVAYZAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”) regarding the terms of a protective 
order, but was unable to reach an agreement.  Although defendant 
MARIETTA TERABELIAN stipulated to the entry of an appropriate 
protective order (CR 50), defendant TERABELIAN subsequently withdrew 
her stipulation.1  Counsel for defendants TAMARA DADYAN and ARTUR 
AYVAZYAN have yet to respond to the government’s proposed stipulation 
for a protective order.   
On December 7, 2020, the government notified counsel for each 
defendant via email that it intended to file the instant ex parte 
application and requested they advise the government whether they 
oppose the ex parte nature of this application.  Counsel for 
defendant TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and DADYAN have not yet responded 
to the government’s email.  At approximately 5:02 p.m. on December 7, 
2020, counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN responded via email that 
                     
1  Despite certifying that he had reviewed the stipulation and 
proposed protective order with his client and agreed to its terms (CR 
50-1), counsel for defendant TERABELIAN has now indicated that he 
mistakenly thought that the government’s proposed protective order 
was the same as a protective order counsel for defendant RICHARD 
AYVAZYAN had previously drafted and circulated to the other 
defendants’ counsel without the government’s knowledge or consent.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 3 of 19   Page ID #:381

 
 
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
defendant R. AYVAZYAN would be filing at 5:05 p.m. its own ex parte 
application to compel production of discovery in this matter.   
Dated: December 7, 2020 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
NICOLA T. HANNA 
United States Attorney 
 
BRANDON D. FOX 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
 
      /s/ 
 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
Assistant United States Attorney 
CHRISTOPHER FENTON 
Department of Justice Trial Attorney 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 4 of 19   Page ID #:382

 
 
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
DECLARATION OF JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
I, Julian L. André, declare as follows: 
1. 
I am an Assistant United States Attorney for the Central 
District of California.  Together with Department of Justice Trial 
Attorney Christopher Fenton, I represent the government in United 
States v. Richard Ayvazyan et al., CR No. 20-579-SVW.  I make this 
declaration in support of the government’s ex parte application to 
obtain a protective order regarding discovery containing personal 
identifying information (“PII”), unauthorized and counterfeit access 
devices, and privacy act information.   
The Need for a Protective Order 
2. 
A protective order is necessary because the government 
intends to produce to the defense materials containing third parties’ 
PII, including PII relating to victims and other third parties.  The 
government also intends to produce materials that constitute or 
depict unauthorized or counterfeit access devices, including access 
devices which were used to perpetrate the alleged fraud or could be 
used to engage in additional fraudulent conduct.  The government 
believes that disclosing this sensitive information without 
limitation risks the privacy and security of the information’s 
legitimate owners, and may expose victims, other third parties and 
the general public to potential safety risks.  Indeed, courts have 
already considered the risks these defendants pose in this respect 
and determined to prohibit the defendants from possessing such 
information as a condition of release.  Moreover, the government has 
an ongoing obligation to protect these victims and other third-
parties, as well as the general public.  The government therefore 
cannot simply produce to defendants an unredacted set of discovery 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 5 of 19   Page ID #:383

 
 
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
containing this sensitive information, particularly in light of the 
alleged criminal conduct in this case and defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s and 
defendant TERABELIAN’s prior federal fraud convictions involving 
allegations similar to those alleged here.   
3. 
Moreover, PII and unauthorized or counterfeit access 
devices make up a significant part of the discovery in this case and 
such information itself, in many instances, has evidentiary value.  
If the government were to attempt to redact all this information in 
strict compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1, the 
Central District of California’s Local Rules regarding redaction, and 
the Privacy Policy of the United States Judicial Conference, the 
defense would receive a set of discovery that would be highly 
confusing and difficult to understand, and it would be challenging 
for defense counsel to adequately evaluate the case, provide advice 
to defendant, or prepare for trial.  Redacting such information would 
also be unduly time-consuming and could lead to delays in the 
production of discovery.   
4. 
An order is also necessary because the government intends 
to produce to the defense materials that may contain information 
within the scope of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (“Privacy Act 
Information”).  To the extent that these materials contain Privacy 
Act Information, an order is necessary to authorize disclosure 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). 
5. 
The purpose of the Protective Order is to (a) allow the 
government to comply with its discovery obligations while preventing 
the unauthorized dissemination, distribution, use of this sensitive 
information; and (b) provide the defense with sufficient information 
to adequately represent defendant.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 6 of 19   Page ID #:384

 
 
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
Background Information 
6. 
On November 17, 2020, a federal grand jury returned a 12-
count indictment in United States v. Ayvazyan et al., No. CR 20-579-
SVW.  The indictment charges defendant RICHARD AYVAZYAN 
(“R. AYVAZYAN”), defendant MARIETTA TERABELIAN, defendant ARTUR 
AYVAZYAN (“A. AYVAYZAN”), and defendant TAMARA DADYAN with violations 
of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud); 18 
U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); and 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) (bank fraud).  
(CR 32.)  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN is also charged with a violation of 
18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (aggravated identity theft).  (Id.)   
7. 
All four defendants are currently released on bond pending 
trial.  The conditions of defendants’ release preclude them from 
using or possessing “any identification, mail matter, access devices, 
or any identification-related material other than in [their] own 
legal or true name[s],” and using bank accounts or credit card 
accounts except in their true names.  (See CR 5.) 
8. 
The charges in this case arise from a conspiracy to 
fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in COVID-19-related disaster 
relief funds under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) and 
Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (“EIDL”).  (CR 32.)  Among 
other things, the indictment alleges that the defendants used fake, 
stolen, and synthetic identities, as well as stolen or fictitious 
business names, to submit fraudulent PPP and EIDL loan applications 
to financial institutions and the Small Business Administration 
(“SBA”).  (Id.)  In connection with the fraudulent loan applications, 
defendants would also make false statements and submit fake 
documents, including fake Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) forms and 
fake California Drivers’ Licenses (“CA DL”).  (Id.)  The indictment 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 7 of 19   Page ID #:385

 
 
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
further alleges that defendants used the fraudulently obtained 
disaster relief funds for their own personal benefit, including to 
purchase the $3.25 million luxury home in which defendants R. 
AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN currently reside.  (Id.) 
9. 
In 2012, defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN were 
previously convicted in this district of conspiracy to commit bank 
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.  See United States v. 
Ayvazyan et al., No. SA CR 11-180-CJC, Dkt. Nos. 58, 90, 99.    
Discovery to be Produced 
10. 
As part of its investigation in this case, the government 
is in possession of documents relating to the charges against 
defendants, and seeks to provide those documents to counsel for 
defendants (although some of the materials may exceed the scope of 
the government’s discovery obligations).   
11. 
Many of the materials that the government intends to 
disclose as discovery in this case contains extensive PII and 
unauthorized and counterfeit access device information, including the 
following: 
a. 
PII of real persons, including victims, other third-
parties and witnesses, as well as PII relating to co-defendants and 
potential co-conspirators.  Such information includes, among other 
things, names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, email 
addresses, Social Security numbers, drivers’ license numbers, credit 
card and bank account information, and personal online passwords.   
b. 
Unauthorized and counterfeit access devices relating 
to stolen, fake, and synthetic identities, including Social Security 
numbers, drivers’ license numbers, bank or credit card account 
numbers, and personal online passwords.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 8 of 19   Page ID #:386

 
 
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
c. 
Financial records, including bank records, credit card 
records, and loan applications, containing PII relating to real 
persons, such as names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, 
email addresses, tax information, Social Security numbers, drivers’ 
license numbers, account numbers, and other confidential financial 
information. 
d. 
Telephone and internet service provider (“ISP”) 
records, containing PII relating to real persons, such as names, 
addresses, phone numbers, mobile identification numbers, and email 
addresses.   
e. 
Credit reports relating to real persons. 
f. 
Records and information obtained from government 
agencies, including the IRS and California Employment Development 
Department (“CA EDD”).   
12. 
The government also seized physical evidence and a number 
of digital devices during the execution of search warrants in 
connection with its investigation, which it intends to produce to 
defendants once the evidence has been processed by law enforcement.  
I understand that the physical and digital evidence seized contains a 
substantial amount of PII relating to third-parties, as well as 
unauthorized or counterfeit access devices which was either used in 
connection with the alleged fraud or which could be used for further 
fraudulent activity.  For example, I understand that a cellphone 
belonging to defendant R. AYVAZYAN contained, among other things, 
numerous counterfeit and unauthorized access devices, namely, 
drivers’ license numbers, Social Security numbers, and credit card 
numbers relating to real, fake, and synthetic identities.  Similarly, 
I understand that at least 20 real or fake drivers’ licenses  and 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 9 of 19   Page ID #:387

 
 
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
27
28
Social Security cards were seized from the residence of defendants A. 
AYVAZYAN and DADYAN.   
The Proposed Protective Order 
13. 
The proposed protective order filed concurrently herewith, 
contains the following provisions designed to prevent the 
unauthorized distribution, dissemination, and use of PII and access 
devices materials: 
a. 
As used herein, “PII Materials” includes any 
information that can be used to identify a person, including a name, 
address, date of birth, Social Security number, driver’s license 
number, telephone number, account number, email address, personal 
identification number, and financial information. 
b. 
As used herein, “Access Device Materials” includes any 
materials that constitute or depict unauthorized or counterfeit 
access devices, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e).   
c. 
“Confidential Information” refers to any document or 
information containing PII Materials or Access Device Materials that 
the government produces to the defense pursuant to this Protective 
Order and any copies thereof. 
d. 
“Defense Team” includes (1) defendant’s counsel of 
record (“defense counsel”); (2) other attorneys at defense counsel’s 
law firm who may be consulted regarding case strategy in this case; 
(3) defense investigators who are assisting defense counsel with this 
case; (4) retained experts or potential experts; and (5) paralegals, 
legal assistants, and other support staff to defense counsel who are 
providing assistance on this case.  The Defense Team does not include 
defendant, defendant’s family members, or any other associates of 
defendant. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 10 of 19   Page ID
#:388

 
 
7 
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
e. 
The government is authorized to provide defense 
counsel with Confidential Information marked with the following 
legend: “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION -- CONTENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE 
ORDER.”  The government may put that legend on the digital medium 
(such as DVD or hard drive) or simply label a digital folder on the 
digital medium to cover the content of that digital folder.  The 
government may also redact any PII contained in the production of 
Confidential Information. 
f. 
If defendant objects to a designation that material 
contains Confidential Information, the parties shall meet and confer.  
If the parties cannot reach an agreement regarding defendant’s 
objection, defendant may apply to this Court to have the designation 
removed. 
g. 
Defendant and the Defense Team shall use the 
Confidential Information solely to prepare for any pretrial motions, 
plea negotiations, trial, and sentencing hearing in this case, as 
well as any appellate and post-conviction proceedings. 
h. 
The Defense Team shall not permit anyone other than 
the Defense Team to have possession of Confidential Information, 
including defendant, while outside the presence of the Defense Team. 
i. 
At no time, under no circumstance, will any 
Confidential Information be left in the possession, custody, or 
control of defendant, regardless of defendant’s custody status. 
j. 
Defendant may review PII Materials or Access Device 
Materials only in the presence of a member of the Defense Team, who 
shall ensure that defendant is never left alone with any PII 
Materials or Access Device Materials.  At the conclusion of any 
meeting with defendant at which defendant is permitted to view PII 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 11 of 19   Page ID
#:389

 
 
8 
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
Materials or Access Device Materials, defendant must return any PII 
Materials or Access Device Materials to the Defense Team, and the 
member of the Defense Team present shall take all such materials with 
him or her.  Defendant may not take any PII Materials or Access 
Device Materials out of the room in which defendant is meeting with 
the Defense Team. 
k. 
Defendant may see and review Confidential Information 
as permitted by this Protective Order, but defendant may not copy, 
keep, maintain, or otherwise possess any Confidential Information in 
this case at any time.  Defendant also may not write down or 
memorialize any data or information contained in the Confidential 
Information.   
l. 
The Defense Team may review Confidential Information 
with a witness or potential witness in this case, including 
defendant.  A member of the Defense Team must be present if PII 
Materials or Access Device Materials are being shown to a witness or 
potential witness.  Before being shown any portion of Confidential 
Information, however, any witness or potential witness must be 
informed of, and agree in writing to be bound by, the requirements of 
the Protective Order.  No member of the Defense Team shall permit a 
witness or potential witness to retain Confidential Information or 
any notes generated from Confidential Information. 
m. 
Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
Defense Team may use secure video conferencing applications, such as 
Zoom, WebEx, Microsoft Teams, or Blue Jeans, to review Confidential 
Information with a defendant or witness, provided that Defense Team 
certifies in writing that there is no way for the defendant or 
witness to (i) maintain electronic copies of the Confidential 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 12 of 19   Page ID
#:390

 
 
9 
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
Information once the video conference is over; or (ii) photograph, 
record, write down or otherwise memorialize any data or information 
contained in the Confidential Information.    
n. 
The Defense Team shall maintain Confidential 
Information safely and securely, and shall exercise reasonable care 
in ensuring the confidentiality of those materials by (1) not 
permitting anyone other than members of the Defense Team, defendant, 
witnesses, and potential witnesses, as restricted above, to see 
Confidential Information; (2) not divulging to anyone other than 
members of the Defense Team, defendant, witnesses, and potential 
witnesses, the contents of Confidential Information; and (3) not 
permitting Confidential Information to be outside the Defense Team’s 
offices, homes, vehicles, or personal presence.   
o. 
To the extent that defendant, the Defense Team, 
witnesses, or potential witnesses create notes that contain, in whole 
or in part, Confidential Information, or to the extent that copies 
are made for authorized use by members of the Defense Team, such 
notes, copies, or reproductions become Confidential Information 
subject to the Protective Order and must be handled in accordance 
with the terms of the Protective Order. 
p. 
The Defense Team shall use Confidential Information 
only for the litigation of this matter and for no other purpose.  
Litigation of this matter includes any appeal filed by defendant and 
any motion filed by defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  In the 
event that a party needs to file Confidential Information with the 
Court or divulge the contents of Confidential Information in court 
filings, the filing should be made under seal.  If the Court rejects 
the request to file such information under seal, the party seeking to 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 13 of 19   Page ID
#:391

 
 
10 
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
file such information publicly shall provide advance written notice 
to the other party to afford such party an opportunity to object or 
otherwise respond to such intention.  If the other party does not 
object to the proposed filing, the party seeking to file such 
information shall redact any PII Materials or Access Device Materials 
and make all reasonable attempts to limit the divulging of PII 
Materials or Access Device Materials.   
q. 
Any Confidential Information inadvertently produced in 
the course of discovery prior to entry of the Protective Order shall 
be subject to the terms of this Protective Order.  If Confidential 
Information was inadvertently produced prior to entry of the 
Protective Order without being marked “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION -- 
CONTENTS SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” the government shall reproduce 
the material with the correct designation and notify defense counsel 
of the error.  The Defense Team shall take immediate steps to destroy 
the unmarked material, including any copies.   
r. 
Confidential Information shall not be used by any 
member of the defense team, in any way, in any other matter, absent 
an order by this Court.  All materials designated subject to the 
Protective Order maintained in the Defense Team’s files shall remain 
subject to the Protective Order unless and until such order is 
modified by this Court.  Upon request by the government, defense 
counsel shall return all PII Materials and Access Device Materials, 
certify that such materials have been destroyed, or certify that such 
materials are being kept pursuant to the California Business and 
Professions Code and the California Rules of Professional Conduct.   
s. 
In the event that there is a substitution of counsel 
prior to when such documents must be returned, new defense counsel 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 14 of 19   Page ID
#:392

 
 
11 
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
must be informed of, and agree in writing to be bound by, the 
requirements of the Protective Order before defense counsel transfers 
any Confidential Information to the new defense counsel.  New defense 
counsel’s written agreement to be bound by the terms of the 
Protective Order must be returned to the Assistant U.S. Attorney 
assigned to the case.  New defense counsel then will become the 
Defense Team’s custodian of materials designated subject to the 
Protective Order and shall then become responsible, upon the 
conclusion of appellate and post-conviction proceedings, for 
returning to the government, certifying the destruction of, or 
retaining pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code 
and the California Rules of Professional Conduct all PII Materials or 
Access Device Materials. 
t. 
Defense counsel shall advise defendant and all members 
of the Defense Team of their obligations under the Protective Order 
and ensure their agreement to follow the Protective Order, prior to 
providing defendant and members of the Defense Team with access to 
any materials subject to the Protective Order. 
14. 
On November 30, 2020, prior to each defendant appearing for 
post-indictment arraignment, the government emailed each defendant’s 
counsel a proposed stipulation for protective order that would cover 
the sensitive personal and financial information that comprises the 
vast majority of the discovery in this case.  That proposed 
stipulation was based on the standard protective order the United 
States Attorney’s Office adopted in March 2020 after consultations 
with the Office of the Federal Public Defender.  The terms of the 
proposed protective order, including the terms precluding the 
defendants from possessing sensitive personal and financial 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 15 of 19   Page ID
#:393

 
 
12 
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
information, were also consistent with prior protective orders 
entered by this Court.  See, e.g., Protective Order, United States v. 
Ohiri, No. CR 19-0042-SVW, Dkt. 35 (C.D. Cal.  Mar. 14, 2019).  
Except for the two modifications described in paragraph 21 below, the 
terms of the protective order government sent defendants’ counsel on 
November 30, 2020, were the same as the terms contained in the 
proposed protective order filed concurrently herewith and described 
in paragraph 13 above. 
15. 
On November 30, 2020, counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN 
advised the government that it objected to the government’s 
stipulation and proposed protective order.  Most notably, counsel for 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN indicated that defendant R. AYVAZYAN objects to 
any provisions that would preclude him from possessing discovery in 
this matter, including the sensitive and confidential PII and access 
device materials described herein.  In turn, the government advised 
defendant R. AYVAYZAN that due to the nature of the allegations 
against defendant R. AYVAZYAN, as well his prior federal fraud 
conviction, it would be inappropriate to allow defendant to possess 
personal identifying information (“PII”) relating to third-parties or 
witnesses, or to possess unauthorized and counterfeit access devices.  
On December 2, 2020, the government and counsel for defendant R. 
AYVAZYAN met-and-conferred regarding the government’s proposed 
protective order, but were unable to reach an agreement as to the 
terms of the protective order.   
16. 
On November 30, 2020, counsel for defendant TERABELIAN 
signed the government’s stipulation for protective order, stating 
“Defense Counsel has conferred with defendant regarding this 
stipulation and the proposed order thereon, and defendant agrees to 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 16 of 19   Page ID
#:394

 
 
13 
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
the terms of the proposed order.”  (CR 50 at 8.)  On December 3, 
2020, however, counsel for defendant TERABELIAN filed a notice 
indicating he was withdrawing the stipulation because he mistakenly 
thought that the protective order to which defendant TERABELIAN had 
agreed was the same as a protective order counsel for defendant R. 
AYVAZYAN had previously drafted and circulated to the other 
defendants in this case without the government’s knowledge or 
consent.  (CR 52.)  The government understands that defendant 
TERABELIAN has now adopted the same objections previously raised by 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN.   
17. 
The government understands that defendant A. AYVAZYAN is in 
the process of retaining counsel to represent him in this matter.  
The Office of the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent 
defendant A. AYVAZYAN for the limited purpose of appearing at his 
initial appearance and post-indictment arraignment, and advised 
government counsel that any issues relating to the protective order 
would be addressed by retained counsel at a later date.  
18. 
Counsel for defendant DADYAN has not responded to the 
government’s proposed stipulation and protective order.   
19. 
In the interests of providing fulsome discovery to 
defendants in a timely fashion, the government has thus prepared and 
filed this ex parte application requesting a protective order that 
will permit the government to produce discovery with minimal 
redactions, but preserves the privacy and security of third-parties 
and protects the public in general by preventing the defendants from 
accessing sensitive information outside of their respective defense 
teams’ presence. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 17 of 19   Page ID
#:395

 
 
14 
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
20. 
On December 7, 2020, the government notified counsel for 
each defendant via email that it intended to file the instant ex 
parte application, and requested they advise the government whether 
they oppose the ex parte nature of this application.  Counsel for 
defendant TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and DADYAN have not yet responded 
to the government’s email.  At approximately 5:02 p.m. on December 7, 
2020, counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN responded via email that 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN would be filing at 5:05 p.m. his own ex parte 
application to compel production of discovery in this matter.   
21. 
In light of concerns raised by counsel for defendants R. 
AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN regarding the potential impact of COVID-19 on 
trial preparations, the government has added a paragraph (paragraph 
13.m above) to the proposed order filed concurrently herewith to 
indicate that the defense teams may use video conferencing systems, 
such as Zoom, WebEx, Microsoft Teams, or Blue Jeans, to review 
Confidential Information with defendants or witnesses, provided that 
counsel for the defendants certifies in writing that there is no way 
for defendants or witnesses to maintain electronic copies of the 
Confidential Information once the video conference is over.  The 
government has also added a paragraph to the protective order 
(paragraph 13.b above) in order to clarify that the protective order 
applies to counterfeit and unauthorized access devices, which 
materials may not have been fully covered under the protective order 
the government originally sent to defendants’ counsel on November 30, 
2020. 
 
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 18 of 19   Page ID
#:396

 
 
15 
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
this declaration is executed at Los Angeles, California, on December 
7, 2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
        /s/ 
 
JULIAN L. ANDRÉ 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 65     Filed 12/07/20     Page 19 of 19   Page ID
#:397

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.65.0.pdf

Size

73,901 bytes

SHA-256

4c04824d90596f1d0579e5639aac7d850b9cebd9a4a2c8812b515064579135e8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.65.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)