*1 The operative 105-page complaint in this case alleges an extensive and complex RICO “international fraud and money-laundering scheme perpetrated against Plaintiffs by Defendants,” pursuant to which, among other wrongful conduct, some of the defendants unlawfully acquired title to valuable real estate that allegedly rightfully belongs to Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 68). Plaintiffs are Skymark Properties Corporation, Inc., Skymark Properties II, LLC, Skymark Properties III, LLC, Skymark SPE, LLC, Hazelton Homes Corporation, and 2399021 Ontario, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The defendants fall into essentially two groups: (1) the “Katebian Defendants,” comprised of defendants Morteza “Ben” Katebian, Payam Katebian, Ali Behrouz, Jordan Asher Samuel, Morrow GA Investors, LLC (“Morrow GA”), and Flemington Capital Corporation (“Flemington Capital”); and (2) the “Green Lake Defendants,” comprised of defendants Green Lake Real Estate Fund, LLC, and its CEO, Peter T. Chang.

Before the Court are numerous motions between Plaintiffs and some (and in some instances all) of the Katebian Defendants. First, the Katebian Defendants filed an emergency motion for protective order, in which they ask the Court to “prevent Plaintiffs and their counsel from disclosing or disseminating any of the documents, materials, testimony and information acquired through discovery to non-Parties Arash Missaghi, Layla Alizadeh & Troy Wilson,” each of whom is alleged to be some form of agent of the Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 138). Second, the Plaintiffs filed two motions that largely go hand-in-hand and that complain about the failure of certain of the Katebian Defendants to (1) abide by the terms of a Letters Rogatory issued by the Court with respect to discovery located in Canada, and (2) produce certain other discovery related to the Freeze Motion. (ECF Nos. 155, 158). Finally, Plaintiffs filed a motion that complains about the failure of certain of the Katebian Defendants to respond truthfully about their business activities in Iran. (ECF No. 157).

Each of these motions was fully briefed by the parties. The Court also ordered Plaintiffs to file a brief addressing their use of a doctored photograph during their deposition of Morteza Katebian. (ECF No. 182). Plaintiffs filed a brief on that matter, and the Katebian Defendants filed a response. (ECF Nos. 185, 186). The Court held oral argument on these motions on November 23, 2021. For the detailed reasons stated on the record and below, these motions are resolved as follows:

Katebian Defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order – ECF No. 138

As the Court explained at the hearing, Plaintiffs have not shown entitlement to the blanket protective order they seek which would prevent Plaintiffs from disclosing to their owners and/or agents documents that have not even been marked “confidential,” and which may well be placed on the docket in this case where they could be accessed by the public. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this motion (ECF No. 138) is DENIED.

*2 At the same time, the Court made clear – and reiterates here – its concern regarding the communications attributed to Arash Missaghi that arguably reflect his desire to use this litigation for an improper purpose. While the Court recognizes Missaghi's non-party status and Plaintiffs' disavowal of his conduct, the Katebian Defendants presented some evidence that Missaghi directs or at least significantly influences, Plaintiffs' operations. Plaintiffs are warned that any conduct by their agents that may be fairly attributed to them, and which may be characterized as harassing or threatening parties or witnesses, or abusing the litigation process for an improper purpose, will result in the imposition of an appropriate sanction, up to and including dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs' Motions Regarding the Canadian Letters Rogatory and Related Freeze Motion Discovery – ECF Nos. 155, 158

The Court fully addressed these motions on the record, quoting from the parties' briefs about particular discovery that Plaintiffs contend they are still owed from the Katebian Defendants. The Katebian Defendants' attorney represented that his clients have conducted a search for those specific materials using the search terms provided by Plaintiffs, and that the data has been provided to an e-discovery entity for processing so that it can be organized for review and production. Counsel represented that the discovery could be produced within a few days, but with the Thanksgiving holiday just two days away, the Court set a deadline for that production of Friday, December 3, 2021. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that these motions (ECF Nos. 155, 158) are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as stated above.

Plaintiffs' Motion Regarding Morteza Katebian's and Ali Behrouz's Failure to Respond Truthfully about Their Business Activities in Iran – ECF No. 157

In this motion, Plaintiffs complain that defendants Morteza “Ben” Katebian (“Ben”) and Ali Behrouz (“Behrouz”) either did not provide requested discovery related to their business activities in Iran or provided information that was untruthful. The requested discovery is relevant to Plaintiffs' claims because they specifically allege that the laundering of the funds in question was accomplished in part by funneling monies through Ben's and Behrouz's Iranian businesses. (E.g., ECF No. 68, PageID.4325-26, 4330, 4366-68). Plaintiffs have supported their claims of Ben's and Behrouz's connection to these Iranian businesses with documents sourced directly from an Iranian government website that contains a publicly-searchable database for Iranian corporate filings.

Despite the existence of those documents on the Iranian government website, Ben and Behrouz deny owning, now or previously, the businesses reflected in those documents. They claim they have hired an Iranian lawyer to investigate how those documents came to be. Obviously, if the documents are accurate – and the Court explained at the hearing their self-authenticating nature under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(3), Foreign Public Documents – Ben's and Behrouz's denials would be, at a minimum, egregiously false and sanctionable. Yet they both deny the documents' legitimacy, and point the finger at Missaghi, who they claim has previously been found to have “intentionally and willingly forged documents and also committed fraud” in connection with a federal court action in 2000. (ECF No. 167-30, PageID.9792-93). Again, while it would seem extremely unusual for an official government website to yield forged corporate documents that happen to coincide with Plaintiffs' theory of this case, Ben and Behrouz are entitled to pursue discovery on that issue. Indeed, the Court's recent Order requiring Plaintiffs to address their use of the doctored photo at Ben's deposition exemplifies why Rule 902(3) provides the opposing party “a reasonable opportunity to investigate the document's authenticity and accuracy.” (ECF No. 182).

*3 For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 157) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Considering that both the Plaintiffs and the Katebian Defendants accuse each other of fabricating evidence to use in this litigation, it is appropriate to warn them all that any determination of such wrongdoing in this case will result in the imposition of a serious sanction, up to and including potential criminal referral to the United States Attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.