Mohindra v. Boghara

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Raghav Mohindra, No. CV-25-02050-PHX-SHD

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Haresh Boghara, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Raghav Mohindra and Defendant Haresh 16 Boghara’s Joint Discovery Statement. (Doc. 42.) 17 On July 8, 2025, Dr. Boghara was ordered to respond to Dr. Mohindra’s 18 interrogatory and requests for production related to the Optima Sales Proceeds’ location 19 during the approximately five-month period in which Dr. Mohindra alleges Dr. Boghara 20 made fraudulent transfers. (Doc. 27 at 3–4.) Dr. Boghara refused to produce documents 21 in response to RFP Nos. 2–4 because the requests “seek[] discovery against [non-party 22 Epic AZ]” and because Epic AZ filed for bankruptcy, “the automatic stay imposed by” 11 23 U.S.C. § 362(a) “stays any and all discovery requests targeted at Epic AZ.” (Doc. 42-1 at 24 3–4.) Dr. Mohindra argues that 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) does not “prohibit[] discovery to a non- 25 debtor party simply because he is associated with the debtor.” (Doc. 42 at 2.) 26 The automatic stay “does not preclude generation of information regarding claims 27 by or against a non-debtor party, even where that information could eventually adversely 28 affect the [d]ebtor.” In re Miller, 262 B.R. 499, 505 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2001). Likewise, the 1 || automatic stay does not prohibit a party from obtaining discovery from a debtor to prosecute the party’s claims against a non-party. /d. (holding that the appellant’s issuance || of a subpoena to the party debtor to obtain information in connection with prosecuting her 4|| claims against a non-debtor party did not violate the automatic stay because a subpoena 5 || was not “issuance or employment of process” or a “judicial proceeding” against the debtor 6|| under $362(a), and noting that to hold otherwise would “def[y] common sense and the 7\| spirit of the [Bankruptcy] Code”). 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Dr. Boghara must respond to Dr. Mohindra’s requests for production Nos. 2—4, (Doc. 42-1 at 4—5), no later than 5:00 PM MST on Thursday, July 11] 31, 2025. 12 Dated this 29th day of July, 2025. 13 14 / 15 2 / 16 "7 H le Sharad H. Desai 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-