Zivkovic v. Laura Christy LLC

Background

The plaintiffs and nonparty Rosey Kalayjian submitted a joint letter asking the court to address a dispute about the scope of discovery into Kalayjian and her assets. The dispute arose after the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an attachment order. The plaintiffs sought an affidavit confirming production and a deposition concerning the existence and location of assets after document production.

The proposed discovery covered eight topics, including bank and investment accounts, real property, business interests, transfers of certain funds, tax returns, the source of payments into Oak Grove Road, LLC, and documents Kalayjian expected to use in a future proceeding to require turnover of attached property.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs argued that, as judgment creditors, they were entitled to broad post-judgment discovery under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Article 52 and discovery under section 6220 to identify assets that could satisfy the judgment or the attachment order. They argued that this included assets outside New York and information about the transfer and present location of $1.4 million in refinancing proceeds. They also sought tax returns, documents related to a possible turnover proceeding, and a deposition about the location and existence of assets.

Kalayjian agreed to produce some information and documents concerning New York accounts, New York real property, New York businesses, and certain payments into Oak Grove Road, LLC. She objected to discovery concerning out-of-state assets, tax returns, some older records, documents for a future turnover proceeding, and an additional deposition. She argued that assets already identified—including an interest in Oak Grove Road, LLC and a Southampton property—were more than sufficient to satisfy the plaintiffs’ judgment and that broader discovery was unnecessary and disproportionate.

Court’s Action

The court granted the plaintiffs’ and Kalayjian’s request to hold a conference about the scope of the plaintiffs’ discovery into Kalayjian and her assets. The court ordered a telephone conference under Local Rule 37.2 for November 14, 2023, at 3:00 p.m., directed the parties to follow the court’s Individual Rules of Practice, and specifically directed compliance with Rule 2(C). The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 530.

The order did not rule on which discovery topics were permissible, whether Kalayjian had to provide the requested documents or deposition, or whether any particular assets were sufficient to satisfy the judgment.