H.H. Franchising Systems, Inc. v. Missionera LLC et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
H.H. FRANCHISING SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-160
Plaintiff,
Hopkins, J.
v. 	Bowman, M.J.
MISSIONERA LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On March 26, 2024, Plaintiff H.H. Franchising Systems (“HHFS”) filed suit against
a former franchisee and related guarantors, Defendants Missionera LLC and Vladimir and
Elena Petrenko, seeking to enforce a non-compete provision in the parties’ franchise
agreement. Initially referred to the undersigned for disposition of all pretrial matters, (Doc.
43), the case is currently referred only for discovery-related issues. (Doc. 56.)
On November 25, 2025, the parties appeared through their respective counsel for
an informal discovery conference, during which they jointly requested the Court’s ruling
on a pending dispute. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will GRANT IN PART
Plaintiff’s construed oral motion to compel Defendants to supplement responses to
Plaintiff’s written discovery requests.
I. 	Procedural Background
In an amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants terminated a franchise
agreement relating to a home health care business on April 5, 2024, shortly after this suit
was filed. At the time of termination, Defendants Elena and Vladimir Petrenko continued
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
to operate their formerly franchised business, Home Helpers, under the name “Mission
Era Homecare” (hereafter “MEH”). (See Doc. 17, ¶ 5, PageID 61.) The amended
complaint seeks specific performance of post-termination non-compete provisions as well
as monetary damages for prior and ongoing breaches of the franchise agreement.
In a Stipulated Order filed on July 22, 2024, Defendants agreed to preliminary
injunctive relief while this lawsuit remains pending. (Docs. 35, 36.) The Order enjoins
Defendants from “owning, maintaining, operating, engaging in, or having any direct or
indirect interest in any business offering senior services, home care aide, home maker,
personal 	care 	aide 	assistance, 	companion 	services, 	medical 	services, 	personal
emergency response products or services or promoting, selling, procuring, providing, or
soliciting referrals for such services, in or within fifteen miles” of the original franchise
business in Connecticut. (Doc. 36 at ¶1). But the Order includes exceptions for services
provided to customers within the fifteen mile zone “provided that those customers were
referred to [Defendants] by the Agency on Aging and that the services provided…are paid
for by Medicaid or Medicare and (b) the parents of Elena Petrenko and Vladimir
Petrenko.” (Id. at ¶2). The injunction includes other terms relating to the use of the phone
numbers associated with the former franchise. The order states that its entry “shall not
constitute an admission by defendants that they committed any unlawful act” and is
“without prejudice to the parties’ right to seek their respective costs and expenses” at the
conclusion of litigation. (Id. at ¶¶3-4).
On July 18, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint. In
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed on November 22, 2024, the undersigned
recommended denial of that motion after concluding that Ohio law applies, and that a
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Connecticut 	law 	relied 	on 	by 	Defendants 	does 	not 	apply. 	(Doc. 	44.) 	Overruling
Defendants’ objections, the presiding district judge adopted the R&R on March 27, 2025,
and thereafter entered a qualified protective order. (Doc. 47, 49.) On May 15, 2025, the
Court entered a Calendar Order. (Doc. 50.) Since then, several deadlines have lapsed,
while others remain pending and/or were extended on November 12, 2025.
On November 25, 2025, the undersigned conducted a telephonic conference on a
pending discovery dispute. Charles J. Hoover appeared on behalf of Plaintiff and John H.
Phillips appeared on behalf of the three Defendants.
II. 	The Discovery Dispute
During the telephonic conference, 1 Plaintiff represented that Defendant Vladimir
Petrenko formed an independent, competitive business called Managed Home Care LLC
(“MHC”) more than five years ago. MHC allegedly offers the same services previously
offered by Defendants’ franchised business in and around the same territory. 2 (See also,
Am. Complaint, Doc. 17, ¶ 52, PageID 68, alleging that Elena and Vladimir “have been
operating…[MHC] 	in 	violation 	of 	the 	in-term 	noncompetition 	covenant 	and 	post-
termination noncompetition covenant.”)
Much of the parties’ dispute pertains to Plaintiff’s requests for information about
MHC. Plaintiff’s specifically seek to compel: (1) supplemental discovery responses and
the production of documents from Defendants regarding MHC; (2) the production of
1
In addition to their oral arguments, the Court invited both parties to submit short letters or memoranda in
camera, with copies provided to opposing counsel. Prior to the conference, Plaintiff tendered a letter
outlining the dispute and including relevant correspondence dated August 1, 2025. Defendants did not
submit any pre-conference materials.
2
Plaintiff implies that one or more Defendants may have continued to have some control over MHC even
after that entity was sold or otherwise transferred to the Petrenko’s son. To date, however, Plaintiff has not
sought to add MHC as an additional party.
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
documents from MHC in response to a subpoena issued directly to that entity; and (3) an
eight week extension of all current pretrial deadlines.
Defendants do not dispute that Vladimir Petrenko was the sole member of MHC
when it was formed, until shortly before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. But in February 2024,
Vladimir allegedly transferred his entire ownership of MHC to his adult son, who
apparently 	resides 	at 	the 	same 	Connecticut 	home 	address. 	Defendants’ 	ongoing
business MEH and MHC are operated from the same residential address, and the two
entities contract with the same answering service. Defense counsel further admits that
Vladimir assists “with payroll calculations” for MHC. But defense counsel represents that
apart from that “volunteer” assistance, it is his “understanding” that neither Vladimir nor
Defendant Elena Petrenko have anything to do with MHC, which ostensibly is an entirely
separate entity in which they have retained no ownership interest. Defense counsel is
adamant that he does not represent MHC and that his clients cannot be compelled to
produce its separate business records. 3
III. 	Analysis
Plaintiff served its initial discovery requests more than a year ago on October 8,
2024. Many of the requests sought discovery relating to MHC as well as the ongoing
business that Defendants admittedly own and operate, MEH. Defendants did not initially
timely respond to any of the requests.
Plaintiff did not at first protest the delay, conceding that discovery was paused
while the Defendants’ motion to dismiss was pending. When Defendants at last served
3
Defense counsel admits to forwarding a request for a two-week extension to respond to a subpoena served
on MHC, but asserts that he did so merely as a courtesy, without formation of any attorney-client
relationship. It is unclear whether MHC is otherwise represented by counsel.
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
their responses, however, a dispute immediately arose concerning the adequacy of those
responses. Among the problems identified by Plaintiff is the fact that Defendants
produced no documents.
In the meantime, during the months in which discovery between the parties had
remained “paused,” Plaintiff had issued third party subpoenas. One of those subpoenas
was directed to MHC. MHC transmitted a request for a brief extension of time through
defense counsel, but never responded to the subpoena.
A. Plaintiff’s Request for Supplemental Production from Defendants
The 	Court 	will 	grant 	Plaintiff’s 	construed 	motion 	to 	compel 	the 	Petrenko
Defendants to supplement their discovery responses, consistent with the deficiencies
identified in Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter of August 1, 2025. Defendants also should verify
their Interrogatory answers under oath.
Defendants must produce all responsive documents relating to Mission Era
Homecare, their ongoing business. During the conference, defense counsel argued that
because Defendants’ business is paid by Medicaid wire transfers, Defendants have no
responsive “paper” documents. But Plaintiff’s Requests seek all relevant bank statements
or other records, including any and all electronic records that would reflect or confirm the
Medicaid transfers.
Defendants also must produce their personal tax returns as well as related
business tax returns, including the returns of MEH through the 2024 tax year and any
returns of MHC during Vladimir’s ownership of that entity. That said, Defendants need not
produce duplicates of tax returns that were previously transmitted to Plaintiff under the
franchise agreement.
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
In prior correspondence between counsel and in Plaintiff’s representations to this
Court, Plaintiff states that it has obtained information from third parties that reflects
Defendants’ transfer of referrals between MEH and MHC. In response to that assertion,
defense counsel suggests that any such transfers might relate to the Agency on Aging
sending referrals to the “wrong Petrenko” or phone calls being routed through the same
answering service and/or documents mistakenly transmitted given the two entities’ use of
the same business address. Be that as it may, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery on that
issue, including any records relating to such transfers.
With respect to MHC in particular, the Court agrees that Defendants must produce
all responsive electronic and other communications and documents for the time period
between MHC’s formation and February 2024. 	Defendants must also respond to
interrogatories relating to MHC if the requested information is known to Defendants. For
both before and after Vladimer transferred ownership of MHC to his son, Defendants must
produce any and all documents in any Defendant’s possession, custody or control,
including but not limited to any electronic records (including emails or texts) relating to
Vladimir Petrenko’s “volunteer” assistance with MHC “payroll calculations,” or other
assistance provided by Elena Petrenko. 4
Defense counsel suggested that the information currently belongs to MHC. But the
fact that MHC or the Petrenkos’ son may have some objection to Defendants’ production
is not grounds for Defendants’ failure to fully respond to all interrogatories if the
information is known to them, nor is it grounds for their failure to fully comply with this
order if they have records or information within their possession, custody or control.
4
Defendants also should supplement their answer to Interrogatory No. 9 to provide additional detail on the
nature of the payroll assistance Vladimir provides, including the software used and the records relied upon.
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
Vladimir Petrenko admittedly owned and operated MHC until mere weeks before this
lawsuit was filed and there is at least some suggestion that Elena Petrenko assisted with
hiring. It would be highly unusual for Defendants to have no information or responsive
documents or communications in any form (whether electronic or paper) concerning an
entity that they so recently owned and operated, and as to which Vladimir continues to
provide “volunteer” payroll services. 5
B. Plaintiff’s Request to Compel MHC to Respond to the Subpoena
Although the Court grants Plaintiff’s construed motion to compel Defendants to
promptly supplement their responses, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request to directly
compel MHC to respond to the outstanding subpoena based on a presumed lack of
jurisdiction. Ordinarily, a party seeking to enforce a subpoena served on a non-party must
file a motion to compel in the court that issued the subpoena. In the limited record
available to this Court, MHC appears to be a Connecticut entity that is not currently owned
or operated by any party to this lawsuit.
C. Plaintiff’s Request to Extend Remaining Pretrial Deadlines
Plaintiff also requests an 8-week further extension of pretrial deadlines for expert
disclosures and discovery. Although the undersigned initially agreed to grant that request,
it is not clear that the amended order of reference provides the undersigned with such
authority. Out of an abundance of caution, therefore, the undersigned only conditionally
grants the requested extensions.
5
Depending on the timing, Defendants may have had an obligation to preserve MHC records.
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
IV. 	Conclusion and Order
For the reasons stated and consistent with this Memorandum Order, IT IS
ORDERED:
1. 	Plaintiff’s oral motion to compel Defendants to supplement their responses to
the 	outstanding 	discovery 	requests 	is 	GRANTED, 	with 	all 	supplemental
responses to be served on or before December 12, 2025;
2. 	Plaintiff’s oral motion to compel MHC to respond to the subpoena served on it
on June 26, 2025 is DENIED due to a lack of showing that this Court has
jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena over the non-party Connecticut entity;
3. 	Plaintiff’s unopposed oral motion to extend the remaining expert disclosure
deadlines 6 and the March 2, 2026 discovery deadline 7 by an additional eight
weeks is conditionally GRANTED, subject to further order by Judge Hopkins.
s/Stephanie K. Bowman
United States Chief Magistrate Judge
6The current deadlines, last extended on November 12, 2025, requires Plaintiff to disclose experts on December 8,
2025, with Defendants to disclose experts on January 23, 2026. Plaintiff’s deadline for the disclosure of any rebuttal
experts is currently February 6, 2026.
7Judge Hopkins originally scheduled a pretrial status conference at the close of discovery on February 4, 2026. That
pretrial conference date remains, as it was not adjusted at the time that the discovery deadline was extended.
Case: 1:24-cv-00160-JPH-SKB Doc #: 58 Filed: 12/01/25 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>