OPPOSITION to EX PARTE APPLICATION for Discovery , or, in the Alternative, for a… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 73)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 73 · 2020-12-09 · 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 
 
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO 
DEFENDANT RICHARD AYVAZYAN’S EX 
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER 
GRANTING DISCOVERY OR, IN THE 
ALTERNATIVE, A PROTECTIVE ORDER 
AND AN ORDER GRANTING DISCOVERY  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 1 of 18   Page ID #:420

 
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
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 
submits its opposition to defendant RICHARD AYVAZYAN’s ex parte 
application for an order granting discovery or, in the alternative, a 
protective order and an order granting discovery (CR 63).    
The government’s opposition is based on the attached memorandum 
of points and authorities, the government’s separate ex parte 
application for a protective order, supporting declaration, and 
proposed protective order (CR 65), the files and records in this 
case, and such further evidence and argument as the Court may permit.  
The government will not repeat all of the facts set forth in its ex 
parte application for a protective order (CR 65), which it 
incorporates by reference herein.   
 
Dated: December 9, 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 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 2 of 18   Page ID #:421

 
i 
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
DESCRIPTION 
PAGE 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................ii 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES................................1 
I. 
INTRODUCTION...................................................1 
II. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..............................2 
III.  ARGUMENT.......................................................4 
A. 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Application to Compel 
Discovery Is Unnecessary..................................4 
B. 
Reasonable Safeguards Are Necessary to Protect 
Victims, Other Third-Parties, and the Public In 
General...................................................5 
C. 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN Would Not Be Prejudiced by the 
Government’s Proposed Protective Order...................10 
D. 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Ex Parte Application Appears 
to Violate the Local Rules...............................13 
E. 
The Government’s Proposed Protective Order Should 
Apply to All Four Defendants in this Case................14 
IV. 
CONCLUSION....................................................14 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 3 of 18   Page ID #:422

 
ii 
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
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
DESCRIPTION 
PAGE 
FEDERAL CASES 
United States v. Ayvazyan et al.,  
No. SA CR 11-180-CJC (C.D. Cal.)...............................6 
United States v. Baker,  
No. 20-CR-288 (LJL), 2020 WL 4589808 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 
2020)..........................................................9 
United States v. Estopare,  
No. CR 20-79-TJH, Dkt. 179 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020)........8, 9 
United States v. W. R. Grace,  
401 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Mont. 2005)...........................9 
FEDERAL STATUTES 
18 U.S.C. § 1029(e).................................................8 
18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.........................................2, 12 
18 U.S.C. § 3174(b).............................................2, 12 
FEDERAL RULES 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(1)........................................4, 5 
MISCELLANEOUS 
C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-09 (Aug. 6, 2020)...................11 
C.D. Cal. Local Civ. R. 79-5.......................................13 
C.D. Cal. Local Civ. R. 79-6.......................................13 
C.D. Cal. Local Crim. R. 49-1.2(b)(5)..............................13 
C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179  
(Dec. 7, 2020.)...........................................11, 12 
Order, In re Approval of the Judicial Emergency Declared in the 
Central District of California (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), 
available at 
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/04/10/
JC%20Order%20and%20Report%20re%20Judicial%20Emergency%20in%
20CA-C.pdf....................................................12 
 
 
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 4 of 18   Page ID #:423

 
 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Defendant RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAYZAN”) is charged with 
conspiring to fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in COVID-19-
related disaster relief funds through two federal loan programs.  On 
Friday, December 4, 2020, defendant R. AYVAZYAN made his initial 
appearance in this district and was arraigned on the 12-count 
indictment.  On the evening of Monday, December 7, 2020, defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN filed the instant ex parte application to compel 
production of discovery in this case.  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s 
application is unnecessary, improper, and should be denied. 
First, the government is working diligently to prepare discovery 
for production in this case, and is ready to begin producing 
discovery to defendants on a rolling basis once the Court has entered 
an appropriate protective order.  Defendants are thus seeking to 
compel the government to do what the government has already committed 
to doing and has been actively attempting to accomplish –- produce 
discovery to defendants (CR 65).  
Second, defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s demand that the government 
provide him with unfettered access to personal identifying 
information (“PII”) of third-parties and unauthorized or counterfeit 
access devices is meritless.  The PII and access device materials to 
be produced in discovery were either used to perpetrate the alleged 
fraud or could be used to engage in additional fraudulent conduct.  
Given the nature of the charges and the fact that defendant R. 
AYVAZYAN and his wife, defendant MARIETTA TERABELIAN, were previously 
convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in this district, 
allowing the defendants in this case (all four of whom are related) 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 5 of 18   Page ID #:424

 
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
to possess this sensitive information would pose a serious risk of 
harm to victims, other third-parties, and the public in general.  In 
contrast, the government’s proposed protective order (CR 65-1) would 
appropriately preclude defendants from personally possessing these 
materials, while still allowing defendants to prepare for trial by 
reviewing this sensitive information in the presence of their lawyers 
or other members of the defense team, including via video conference 
from their homes.  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN does not – and cannot – 
articulate how the proposed protective order would actually prejudice 
him, particularly when it permits him access to discovery via an 
application like Zoom or WebEx from his home. 
Third, there will be more than sufficient time for defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN and his lawyers to review the discovery in advance of 
trial.  Although this case has initially been set for trial on 
January 12, 2021, trials in this district are suspended indefinitely 
due to COVID-19.  And under the Speedy Trial Act and 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3174(b), the Court has until June 2, 2021, to commence the trial as 
to defendant R. AYVAZYAN.  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s insistence that he 
is proceeding to trial on January 12, 2020, is divorced from the 
current reality facing this district. 
For these reasons, the Court should grant the government’s ex 
parte application seeking a protective order so that the government 
may begin producing discovery (CR 65) and deny the defendant’s ex 
parte application to compel discovery (CR 63).     
II. 
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On November 30, 2020, in advance of and in anticipation of the 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s December 4, 2020, initial appearance in this 
district and all four defendants’ post-indictment arraignments, the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 6 of 18   Page ID #:425

 
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
government circulated a proposed protective order to counsel for each 
defendant.  (CR 63, Ex. C.)  The proposed protective order was based 
on the standard protective order that the U.S. Attorney’s Office 
adopted in March 2020 after consultation with the Federal Public 
Defender’s Office and that has been used extensively in this 
district.  (CR 63, Ex. E.)  
The U.S. Attorney’s Office standard protective order provides 
for different levels of protection of discovery based on the facts of 
each case.  After consideration of the nature of the charges in this 
case (which include conspiracy, bank and wire fraud, and aggravated 
identity theft), and defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN’s criminal 
histories (which include using the identities of other individuals to 
defraud financial institutions), the government proposed a version of 
the protective order that permits defendant to access to all of the 
discovery so long as certain safeguards are in place.  The government 
explained to defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s counsel that the government has 
been preparing discovery and would be prepared to begin providing 
discovery on a rolling basis as soon as the defendant agreed to, and 
the Court entered, the proposed protective order. 
Counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN rejected the government’s 
proposed protective order, instead insisting on language that would 
provide defendant R. AYVAZYAN unfettered access to all of the 
discovery, including extensive amounts of PII belonging to third-
parties and unauthorized or counterfeit access devices, such as bank 
and credit card account numbers, social security numbers, and 
drivers’ license numbers.  The government told counsel that, because 
of the nature of allegations against defendant R. AYVAZYAN, the 
government could not agree to provide him unfettered access to PII 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 7 of 18   Page ID #:426

 
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
and access device materials.  However, in light of the risks posed by 
the COVID-19 pandemic, the government was agreeable to revise the 
proposed protective order to permit defendant R. AYVAZYAN remote 
access to discovery (including from his home) so as to better permit 
him the ability to participate in his defense.  This accommodation 
was intended to provide defendant R. AYVAZYAN a safe and convenient 
means of viewing discovery with the safeguards otherwise required by 
the standard protective order applicable in cases like this one. 
On December 7, 2020, the government informed counsel for each 
defendant that because the parties had been unable to reach an 
agreement on an appropriate protective order, it planned to file an 
ex parte application seeking a protective order under Federal Rule of 
Criminal Procedure 16(d)(1) later that day or the following morning.  
(CR 63, Ex. G.)  The government said that it hoped its application 
would “allow the Court to resolve this issue expeditiously” so the 
government could “begin producing discovery to the defendants on a 
rolling basis, as [it] had always planned.”  (Id.)  Defendant R. 
AYVAYZAN’s counsel responded by notifying the government that it 
intended to file the instant ex parte application seeking to compel 
production of discovery and asked the government to respond – within 
three minutes – with its position as to the ex parte application.  
Counsel for defendant R. AYVAZYAN filed the instant application 
shortly thereafter.     
III. ARGUMENT 
A. 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Application to Compel Discovery Is 
Unnecessary 
 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s request that the Court compel the 
production of discovery is unnecessary, and his claim that the 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 8 of 18   Page ID #:427

 
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
government is holding the discovery “hostage” is frivolous.  
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN was indicted on November 17, 2020.  He made his 
initial appearance in this district and was arraigned just a few days 
ago on December 4, 2020.  The government has worked diligently to 
prepare discovery for production, and is ready to begin producing 
discovery on a rolling basis as soon as the Court enters an 
appropriate protective order.  Had the parties agreed to the entry of 
a stipulated protective order, the government would have already made 
its initial discovery production.   
Additionally, once it became clear that the parties would not 
reach an agreement on a protective order, the government promptly 
sought a protective order from this Court.  On December 7, 2020 -- 
prior to defendant R. AYVAZYAN filing the instant ex parte 
application -- the government advised the defendants it would be 
seeking a protective order under Rule 16(d)(1) in hopes of expediting 
the resolution of this issue and the subsequent production of 
discovery.  Nevertheless, defendant R. AYVAZYAN rushed to file the 
instant ex parte just before the government, and is now requesting 
that the Court compel the government to do something it has 
repeatedly committed to doing and has actively been attempting to 
accomplish -- produce discovery to defendants.  Such an order is 
simply unnecessary. 
B. 
Reasonable Safeguards Are Necessary to Protect Victims, 
Other Third-Parties, and the Public In General  
 
Defendant R. AYVAYZAN claims that the Court need not enter a 
protective order or that, in the alternative, the Court should enter 
a protective order that does not impose meaningful safeguards on 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s ability to possess sensitive information, 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 9 of 18   Page ID #:428

 
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
such as PII and access devices.  (CR 63.)  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s 
primary argument is that the government has not identified specific 
facts showing that he poses a identified risk based on the disclosure 
of specific information.  (See CR 63 at 8-11.)  Defendant is wrong.   
As set forth in the government’s ex parte application, in 2012, 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN and his wife (codefendant TERABELIAN) pleaded 
guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud.  (CR 65, ¶ 9.)  In the 
factual basis to his plea agreement for the 2012 conviction, 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN admitted that he defrauded three financial 
institutions by submitting fraudulent loan applications and false 
supporting documentation.  United States v. Ayvazyan et al., No. SA 
CR 11-180-CJC, Dkt. No. 58.  Defendant also admitted that, in 
connection with a short sale of his residence to his mother, he 
caused his mother to submit a fraudulent letter to a financial 
institution falsely stating she was not related to the owner of the 
property.  Id. 
The charges in this case are similar to those to which defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN pleaded guilty in 2012, but also far more serious:  the 
indictment alleges that defendant R. AYVAZYAN conspired with his wife 
(defendant TERABELIAN), brother (defendant ARTUR AYVAYZAN (“A. 
AYVAZYAN”), sister-in-law (defendant TAMARA DADYAN), and others to 
fraudulently obtain at least $5.6 million in COVID-19-related 
disaster relief funds under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) 
and Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) Program.  Among other 
things, the indictment alleges that 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.  
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 10 of 18   Page ID
#:429

 
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
Evidence seized from defendant R. AYVAZYAN and his codefendants 
show that defendants recently possessed a substantial amount of PII 
relating to third-parties, as well as unauthorized or counterfeit 
access devices which were either used in connection with the alleged 
fraud or which could be used for further fraudulent activity.  For 
example, at the time the defendant was arrested in Miami, Florida, he 
was in possession of numerous counterfeit and unauthorized access 
devices, including credit cards in the names of at least two 
synthetic or stolen identities.  (See CR 1 at ¶ 41.)  Separately, one 
of many 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.  (See 
CR 65 ¶ 12.)  Similarly, at least 20 real or fake drivers’ licenses 
and Social Security cards were seized from the residence of 
defendants A. AYVAZYAN and DADYAN last month.  (Id.)  
These facts specifically show that defendant R. AYVAZYAN (and 
his three codefendants/family members) pose an identified risk, 
namely that, if given unfettered access to this sensitive 
information, the defendants may use these fake, stolen, and synthetic 
identities to commit new crimes, such as obtaining new credit cards, 
applying for new loans or other lines of credits, and opening new 
bank accounts to launder criminal proceeds.  This specific concern 
was a sufficient basis for the Court to impose special conditions of 
release prohibiting the defendants 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 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 11 of 18   Page ID
#:430

 
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
names.1  (See, e.g., CR 5.)  And this specific concern is more than a 
sufficient basis for the Court to impose reasonable safeguards on 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s access to such information in this case 
pursuant to Rule 16(d)(1).2 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN also relies heavily on The Honorable Terry 
J. Hatter Jr.’s order in United States v. Estopare, No. CR 20-79 
(TJH), Dkt. 179 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2020), to argue that the Court 
need not impose safeguards on the defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s access to 
discovery.  (CR 63 at 11-14.)  The relevant facts of Estopare are 
materially different than in this case and readily distinguishable. 
First, the defendants in Estopare were not alleged to have used 
fake, stolen, or synthetic identities in connection with the crimes 
charged and do not appear to have had criminal histories involving 
such offenses.  In contrast, allegations of fraud using fake, stolen, 
or synthetic identities and identity theft are central to the 
indictment against defendants in this case. 
Second, the defendant in Estopare was in custody.  Defendants in 
this case are all released on bond and, pursuant to the terms of the 
                     
1 Contrary to defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s claim (CR 63 at 7), it is 
in fact illegal for defendants to possess the unauthorized or 
counterfeit access devices that are contained in the discovery, such 
as stolen or fake drivers’ licenses numbers, Social Security numbers, 
and bank or credit account numbers.  See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e) 
(defining unauthorized or counterfeit access devices).   
   
2 Defendant R. AYVAZYAN attempts to mitigate the significance of 
these facts and allegations by offering self-serving 
characterizations that are contradicted by the record.  For example, 
defendant R. AYVAZYAN claims that he is an “upstanding businessman,” 
pointing to his ownership of Inception Ventures.  (See, e.g., CR 63 
at 10.)  However, the indictment alleges that defendant R. AYVAZYAN 
used Inception Ventures to funnel fraudulently-obtained disaster 
relief loan funds to purchase a multi-million dollar home in the name 
of him and his wife, codefendant TERABELIAN.  (See CR 32.)   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 12 of 18   Page ID
#:431

 
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
proposed protective order, would be permitted to access and review 
all of the discovery by traveling to their attorneys’ offices or from 
their homes using Zoom or other video conferencing applications.   
Third, at the time the defendant in Estopare filed her ex parte 
application, approximately three months had passed since the 
defendant had been indicted and made her initial appearance in this 
district.  Here, defendant R. AYVAZYAN filed his ex parte application 
just over one business day after his initial appearance in this 
district.  Estopare has no application to this case.3   
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN also cites to United States v. Baker, No. 
20-CR-288 (LJL), 2020 WL 4589808, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2020), 
arguing that this case demonstrates why the proposed protective order 
in this case is unworkable, particularly amidst the COVID-19 
pandemic.  The defendant in Baker, however, was detained and 
specifically alleged that the Bureau of Prisons video-conferencing 
technology that he used to communicate with his counsel was highly 
flawed and frequently resulted in the premature termination of video-
conference meetings.  Id.  In this case, however, the government has 
proposed a protective order that would permit the defendants to use 
reliable videoconferencing technology – such as Zoom – to meet with 
                     
3 Defendant R. AYVAZYAN similarly relies on United States v. W. 
R. Grace, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1095 (D. Mont. 2005), which is also 
irrelevant. In that case, the defendants, who were alleged to have 
committed certain environmental crimes and related frauds, sought the 
medical records of the alleged victims, including victim-witnesses.  
The government filed a motion for a protective order based on 
concerns that the victim witnesses’ privacy rights require redaction 
of the records prior to disclosure.  This case did not concern 
imposing reasonable safeguards to protect against the misuse of fake, 
stolen and synthetic identifies by a defendant who was alleged to 
have used such information in furtherance of the crimes charged, had 
a criminal history, and was prohibited by the Court from possessing 
such information as a condition of his release. 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 13 of 18   Page ID
#:432

 
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
defense counsel to review discovery from their homes.  Defendants 
also remain able to travel to their attorneys’ respective offices to 
review discovery at any time. 
Finally, other cases in which government counsel stipulated to 
different protective orders (see CR 63 at 4-6) are irrelevant.  The 
cases defendant R. AYVAZYAN cites involved different charges, 
different facts, and different defendants with different criminal 
histories.  The fact that government counsel did not believe such 
restrictions were necessary in those particular cases, does not 
establish that such restrictions are unnecessary here.  Rather, those 
cases prove that the government only seeks the additional safeguards 
sought in this case when it truly believes they are necessary.   
C. 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN Would Not Be Prejudiced by the 
Government’s Proposed Protective Order 
 
There is no merit to defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s claim that the 
government’s proposed protective order prejudices his defense and 
thereby deprives him of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.  (CR 63 
at 1, 14-16.)  Nor can defendant R. AYVAZYAN legitimately claim that 
the prejudice in this case is acute because he intends to go to trial 
on January 12, 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.4  (Id.)   
As an initial matter, defendant R. AYVAZYAN does not – and 
cannot – articulate how the proposed protective order would actually 
prejudice him.  He does not show how the proposed protective order 
would prevent him from reviewing discovery and participating in his 
                     
4 Although defendant R. AYVAZYAN argues it would be unsafe to 
require him to review discovery at his counsel’s office during the 
COVID-19 pandemic (CR 63 at 16, Ex. D), defendant apparently has no 
such concerns for the health and safety of prospective jurors, the 
Court, or court personnel.    
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 14 of 18   Page ID
#:433

 
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
defense, particularly when it allows him to access discovery at his 
attorney’s office or via Zoom from his home.  He also does not show 
why he needs to possess a copy of information related to fake, 
stolen, or synthetic identities in order to meaningfully participate 
in his defense, as opposed to being informed of these identities.       
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s claim that emergency relief is necessary 
due to the current January 12, 2020, trial date is likewise 
misplaced.  Although the trial in this matter has been set for 
January 12, 2021, defense counsel is undoubtedly aware that all jury 
trials in this district are currently suspended due to the COVID-19 
pandemic and that such a trial date is thus not possible.   See C.D. 
Cal. General Order No. 20-09 (Aug. 6, 2020).  The August 2020 General 
Order concluded that it was necessary to suspend criminal jury trials 
until further notice “in order to protect public health, and in order 
to reduce the size of public gatherings and reduce unnecessary 
travel, and found that “holding jury trials substantially increases 
the chances of transmitting the Coronavirus,” and would “place 
prospective jurors, defendant, attorneys, and court personnel at 
unnecessary risk.”  Id. at 3.  The Court concluded that suspending 
jury trials thus served the ends of justice and outweighed the 
interests of the public and defendants in a speedy trial.  Id.    
Additionally, on December 7, 2020, the Chief Judge issued an 
order implementing further emergency procedures due to the 
“unprecedented surge of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and test 
positivity rates in the Central District of California” and the 
State’s regional stay-at-home order.  C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief 
Judge No. 20-179, at 1-2 (Dec. 7, 2020.)   Under the Chief Judge’s 
most recent order, all Courthouses in this district will be closed to 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 15 of 18   Page ID
#:434

 
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
the public and no in-person hearings will go forward, except for 
hearings on criminal duty matters, until January 8, 2021.  Id. at 2-
3.  Given that jury summons must be sent out at least 49 days prior 
to any trial, the earliest this case could proceed to trial appears 
to be March 2, 2021.   
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Speedy Trial Act argument is also 
meritless.  The Speedy Trial Act currently requires that the trial of 
defendant R. AYVAYZAN commence on or before June 2, 2021.5  Because 
the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has declared an emergency 
in the Central District of California, the Speedy Trial Act clock--in 
this case--is extended from 70 days to 180 days.6  Specifically, 
under the Judicial Council’s order and 18 U.S.C. § 3174, Speedy Trial 
trial-date clocks are extended to 180 days in all cases: (a) “for 
which indictments or informations are filed” between April 13, 2020, 
and April 13, 2021; and (b) in which the defendant is not “being 
detained solely because [he or she is] awaiting trial[.]”  18 U.S.C. 
§ 3174(b).  This is such a case.  And because defendant R. AVYAZYAN 
did not make his initial appearance in this district until December 
4, 2020, the Speedy Trial Act clock did not begin to run until 
                     
5 The Speedy Trial Act also requires that the trial of defendant 
TERABELIAN commence on or before June 2, 2021.  However, the Speedy 
Trial Act requires that the trial of defendants A. AYVAZYAN and 
DADYAN commence on or before May 16, 2021, because defendants A. 
AYVAYZAN and DADYAN had appeared in this district prior to the 
November 17, 2020, indictment.  If the parties cannot reach an 
agreement on an acceptable new trial date, the government will move 
ex parte for a continuance of the trial date to May 2021. 
6 See Order, In re Approval of the Judicial Emergency Declared 
in the Central District of California (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), 
available at 
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/04/10/JC%20Order
%20and%20Report%20re%20Judicial%20Emergency%20in%20CA-C.pdf.  
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 16 of 18   Page ID
#:435

 
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
December 4, 2020.  18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).  The Court can thus 
reschedule the trial for any date prior to June 2, 2021, without 
impacting defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Speedy Trial Act rights.7   
D. 
Defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s Ex Parte Application Appears to 
Violate the Local Rules 
 
The government objects to defendant R. AYVAZYAN filing a portion 
of his ex parte application in camera and under seal.  The government 
sees no reason why an in camera filing would be necessary or 
appropriate at this stage of this litigation or in connection with 
his ex parte application.  And defendant R. AYVAZYAN has provided no 
meaningful explanation for the in camera submission other than a 
vague reference to the “sanctity of his defense strategy” in a 
footnote.  (CR 63 at 16, n. 6.)  Defendant R. AYVAZYAN also appears 
to have violated the local rules by submitting his ex parte 
application in camera and under seal without first seeking permission 
from the Court, as required under Local Criminal Rule 49-1.2(b)(5) 
and Local Civil Rules 79-5 and 79-6.  Notably absent from defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN’s corresponding notice of manual filing (CR 62) is any 
indication that defendant R. AYVAZYAN has filed an application for 
leave to file documents in camera and under seal.  Accordingly, the 
government respectfully requests that the Court strike that portion 
of defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s ex parte application, and not consider any 
arguments contained therein.  
                     
7 The Court may also need to reschedule the trial because 
coconspirators should be tried together and at least one of defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN’s coconspirators, his brother defendant A. AYAVZYAN, just 
retained permanent counsel on December 8, 2020.   
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 17 of 18   Page ID
#:436

 
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
E. 
The Government’s Proposed Protective Order Should Apply to 
All Four Defendants in this Case 
 
On December 8, 2020, defendants TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and 
DADYAN filed a notice indicating that they are joining in defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN’s ex parte application.  (CR 70.)  None of the other 
three defendants presented any individualized arguments in connection 
with their joinder.  They appear to rely entirely on defendant 
R. AYVAZYAN’s arguments.  And defendant A. AYVAZYAN joined the ex 
parte application to compel production of discovery despite the fact 
that he has yet to request that the government produce discovery. 
The need to impose safeguards on defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s access 
of sensitive PII and access device materials applies equally to his 
three codefendants.  Indeed, all four are family and are alleged to 
have acted in close concert throughout the alleged conspiracy.  
Additionally, as set forth above, defendant TERABELIAN was convicted 
in 2012 of conspiring with defendant R. AYVZAYAN to commit bank 
fraud.  And the same type of access device materials that were 
recovered from defendant R. AYVAZYAN were recovered from defendants 
A. AYVAZYAN and DADYAN’s residence.  
IV. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests 
the Court deny defendant R. AYVAZYAN’s ex parte application (CR 63), 
and instead enter the government’s proposed protective order (CR 65-
1).  Once the Court has resolved this protective order issue, the 
government is prepared to begin immediately producing discovery on a 
rolling basis and will continue to work diligently to complete its 
remaining discovery productions in a timely manner.   
 
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW     Document 73     Filed 12/09/20     Page 18 of 18   Page ID
#:437

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.73.0.pdf

Size

81,937 bytes

SHA-256

b5dc5e8647f2cc858a546e9a1a4393ee5fef4f941bc3d7c87caada535c3dd07d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.73.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)