City of Almaty, Kazahkstan, et al. v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, et al., No. 1:2015cv05345 - Document 1221 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth above, Triadou's motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 1178) is granted in part and denied in part. Triadou shall submit its application for attorneys fees and costs consistent with this Order by March 20, 2 020. Plaintiffs' opposition to the application is due March 27, 2020. No reply will be permitted. The motions to seal at Doc. Nos. 1179, 1189 and 1191 are granted in part. The letter briefs and Exhibit 1 to Triadou's moving letter brief, wh ich is the Sadykov deposition transcript, may not be filed under seal, except that portions of these documents discussing specific information on the Exhibit labeled PX252 pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation may be redacted and filed unde r seal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the Motions at Doc. Nos. 1178, 1179, 1189, and 1191. The parties are directed to review this Court's revised rules concerning filing documents under seal (which now may be done on ECF) and to file redacted versions of their letter briefs and the Sadykov deposition transcript on ECF within seven days of this Order. SO ORDERED. re: 1189 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 1188 Response in Opposition to Motion, addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Wenner dated October 10, 2019 filed by City of Almaty, BTA Bank JSC, 1178 LETTER MOTION for Discovery and Requesting Sanctions addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Park er from Deborah A. Skakel dated 10/04/2019 filed by Triadou SPV S.A., 1191 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 1190 Reply to Response to Motion, addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Deborah A. Skakel dated 10/15/2 019 filed by Triadou SPV S.A., 1179 LETTER MOTION to Seal Document 1178 LETTER MOTION for Discovery and Requesting Sanctions addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Deborah A. Skakel dated 10/04/2019. addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. filed by Triadou SPV S.A., (Motions due by 3/20/2020. Responses due by 3/27/2020). (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 3/12/2020) (rjm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
City of Almaty, Kazahkstan, et al. v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, et al. Doc. 1221 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 03/12/2020 CITY OF ALMATY, KAZAKHSTAN, and BTA BANK JSC, Plaintiffs, OPINION & ORDER -against- 1:15-CV-05345 (AJN) (KHP) MUKHTAR ABLYAZOV, VIKTOR KHRAPUNOV, ILYAS KHRAPUNOV, and TRIADOU SPV S.A., Defendants. KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defe da t T iadou “PV “.A. T iadou moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P o edu e Al at ‘ule ) for sanctions against Plaintiffs, the City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC BTA Ba k (collectively, the Kazakh E tities o Plai tiffs for exceeding the scope of authorized deposition questioning of non-party witness Kairat Sadykov. (Doc. No. 1178.) Triadou requests that the Cou t st ike “ad ko s depositio a d p e lude Plaintiffs from calling him as a witness at trial. It also seeks its easo a le atto e s fees incurred in connection with preparing for and conducting the Sadykov deposition, which it contends was unnecessary because he was not competent to testify on the topics authorized by this Court, as ell as its atto e s fees a d osts i u ed i o e tio ith the i sta t motion for sanctions.1 After careful consideration, T iadou s otio is granted in part and denied in part. The Cou t does ot add ess T iadou s arguments about the deposition of a witness from SMP Partners or the authentication of documents produced by that entity because those arguments are irrelevant to the instant motion, which pertains solely to the conduct at “ad ko s depositio . The Court has already ruled that Triadou may depose a witness from SMP Partners and extended discovery for that purpose. Plaintiffs do not object to Triadou deposing a witness from SMP Partners. (Doc. No. 1151.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com BACKGROUND Last July, this Court permitted Plaintiffs to amend their Rule 26(a) disclosures after the close of discovery to add certain witnesses, including Kairat Sadykov, on whose testimony Plaintiffs intend to rely at trial to authenticate certain spreadsheets produced in discovery. These spreadsheets, efe ed to as the T adesto k sp eadsheets, reflect the transfer of money between and to various entities and, according to Plaintiffs, reflect what happened to the money Defendant Mukhtar Ablyazov stole from BTA Bank and how the money was lau de ed th ough a ious shell e tities i to T iadou s a ou ts. To mitigate any prejudice to Defendants from the decision permitting the late addition of these three witnesses, the Court allowed Defendants to depose the witnesses as to the meaning of the information in the spreadsheets. (Doc. No. 1101.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs stated that they intended to question Sadykov at his deposition about communications he had with Yerzhan Tatishev (the former Chairman of BTA Bank, now deceased) and Defendant Mukhtar Ablyazov, as well as the authenticity and meaning of the spreadsheets. Triadou objected to Sadykov offering testimony on anything other than the authenticity and meaning of the spreadsheets. The Court then held a phone conference to discuss T iadou s o je tio a d the scope of Sadyko s depositio testi o . After hearing from the parties, this Court clarified its prior discovery order and held that Plaintiffs questioning of Sadykov at deposition must be limited to establishing the authenticity of the Tradestock spreadsheets and related foundational questions. It permitted defense counsel to ask questions about the meaning of the information in the spreadsheets. (Doc. No. 1160.) 2 The parties subsequently deposed Sadykov and the other two witnesses in Kazakhstan. Triadou objected to various questions posed by Plai tiffs ou sel du i g the depositio on the ground that they were unrelated to establishing the authenticity and meaning of the spreadsheets and, thus, exceeded the limitations this Court placed on the deposition. Plaintiffs contend they stayed withi the ou da ies of this Cou t s o de a d that thei uestio s to Sadykov were designed to establish the trustworthiness and accuracy of the information in the spreadsheets, which they say is necessary to offer the spreadsheets and the information contained therein into evidence. Triadou requests that this Court sanction Plaintiffs for violating its order circumscribing the scope of the deposition by striking Sadyko s depositio testimony and precluding Plaintiffs from offering his testimony into evidence. SUMMARY OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY Because Triadou does not point to specific questions in the deposition for a ruling, the Court must first summarize the deposition testimony before addressing the substance of T iadou s otio . T iadou a d the other Defe da ts ou sel o je ted th oughout the e ti et of the depositio , hi h as uite sho t. The t a s ipt of Plai tiffs uestio s to “ad ko is only 45 pages, and nearly half of it consists of colloquy of counsel about the objections, including thei diffe i g ie s o ho to esta lish a fou datio fo “ad ko s testi o about the spreadsheets, the meaning of information in them, and whether the questions were truly aimed at authenticating the documents and related foundational questions. Plai tiffs ou sel sta ted the depositio aski g ge e al uestio s a out “ad ko s background and relationship to BTA Bank, including his various roles and responsibilities there. Cou sel ui kl ze oed i o “ad ko s espo si ilities fo a d to a u it of the bank called 3 UKB- to esta lish that he had personal knowledge about how UKB-6 conducted its ope atio s. Plai tiffs ou sel the sho ed “ad ko a e ail ith a a k state e t f o Trasta Komerc Bank attached, and asked questions about the email and bank statement and a question about who within UKB-6 had access to Trasta Komerc Bank records. Defense counsel objected to these questions. Plai tiffs ou sel the asked “ad ko if he k e hat T adesto k is a d sho ed hi the Tradestock spreadsheets and asked him to explain what the chart shows. Defense counsel the o je ted to these uestio s o the g ou d that Plai tiffs ou sel had ot esta lished the foundation for how or why the witness was able to answer questions about the spreadsheet. The witness went on to explain that the names listed in the Issue a d ‘e ipie t olu s on the chart are offshore companies affiliated with BTA Bank, something the witness knew because he worked directly with the offshore companies when he worked at BTA Bank supervising the operations of UKB-6. The witness further explained that UKB-6 had been directed to engage in the various transactions reflected on the chart, such as issuing loans and transferring funds. Defense counsel objected again on the ground that the testimony elicited as e o d the s ope of the Cou t s o de . Plai tiffs ou sel the asked “ad ko to e plai the pu pose of pa e t olu hat the ea i g of the i fo atio i as, hi h eli ited a othe o je tio . Plai tiffs ou sel then asked Sadykov to look at a particular transaction noted on the spreadsheets involving a t a sfe of $ . illio f o a o pa alled A ital to T adesto k fo the pu hase of so flour. The witness discussed the transaction and stated that no soy flour was bought, even though the pu pose of pa e t olu stated that so flou 4 as pu hased. Defe se ou sel agai o je ted to the testi o as e o d the s ope of this Cou t s o de a d la ki g i fou datio . Plai tiffs ou sel the atte pted to establish foundation and asked the witness how he knew about the information reflected on the chart. Although it is not entirely clear from the testimony, the witness appeared to answer that he conveyed instructions to the author of the chart as to what information to include in the chart. Defense counsel again objected. Plai tiffs ou sel then asked Sadykov about another transaction reflected on the chart showing Tradestock transferring funds to Trasta Bank. Sadykov explained that the companies listed as issuers and recipients on the chart were all affiliated with BTA Bank, except for Theyler Holdi g. Plai tiffs ou sel di e ted “ad ko to a transaction shown on the chart reflecting a payment of $96 million from Tradestock to Theyler Holding, and asked the witness whether Tradestock received funds from any other companies in order to make the transfer to Theyler Holding. Sadykov responded by stating the Tradestock received funds from United Clearing, Balgaven, Comwork and Imex Management, all of which had received the funds in the form of loa s issued Ba k Tu a Ale . Plai tiffs ou sel the asked ho had issued the lette s of credit/loans. Sadykov responded that the letters of credit were provided by a foreign financial organization in Russia. Defense counsel again objected to all of these questions based on form a d fou datio . Plai tiffs ou sel e t o to ask “ad ko to ide tif so e of the e tities listed i the Issue a d Re ipie t Ko e olu Ba k a d BTA a d Ba k Tu a Ale s i itials. “ad ko ide tified TKB as T aska a d BTB as Balticums Bank. When asked the basis for his knowledge, Sadykov stated that offshore companies affiliated with Bank TuranAlem first had accounts with Trasta Bank and then had accounts with Balticums Bank. 5 Plai tiffs ou sel asked “ad ko listed o the ha t i a olu hethe he e og ized the a e Ba ue MeesPie so la eled Ba k of ‘e ipie t. “ad ko stated that it as a a k where MeesPierson had an account and went on to explain in response to another question that he met with representatives of MeesPierson at the direction of Tatishev. Defense counsel agai o je ted to the li e of uestio i g as outside the s ope of the Cou t s o de . After the questions about the spreadsheets were completed, Plai tiffs ou sel sho ed “ad ko a othe do u e t e titled Clie t Ag ee e t Theyler Holdings Limited MeesPierson I te t ust a d asked hi if his sig atu e appea ed o the do u e t. The it ess a s e ed i the affirmative. Defense counsel objected to the line of questions and answers on the basis that the exhibit is e o d the s ope of this Cou t s o de . Plai tiff s ou sel the sho ed “ad ko a othe T adesto k sp eadsheet a d asked the witness about it. Sadykov testified that he did not create the document and did not see it efo e his depositio p epa atio . Plai tiffs ou sel asked “ad ko if he e e theless understood the information reflected on the multi-page document. The witness answered in the affirmative and explained that the first column showed offshore companies affiliated with BTA Bank, the second column showed people authorized to act on behalf of those offshore companies, the third column showed nominee directors of those companies, and the fourth column showed signatories who signed contracts on behalf of those companies. The witness explained he knew this information based on his time as a supervisor for UKB-6 and elaborated that the people listed as having power of attorney for those companies were Tatishev or his close asso iates. Plai tiffs ou sel the asked ho “ad ko k e a out Tatishe s elatio ship with various people listed on the chart. The witness again explained he learned about this 6 when he supervised the operations of UKB- . Plai tiffs ou sel asked “ad kov to explain the diffe e e et ee o i ee di e to s a d di e to s. “ad ko e plai ed that o i ee directors do not have any authority to act for a company. Defense counsel objected to this whole line of questions, again, as being beyond the scope of this Cou t s o de . Plai tiffs ou sel the asked “ad ko a out e o ds ai tai ed BTA Ba k a d UKB-6 at the time Sadykov advised Tatishev on UKB-6. Sadykov explained that the bank maintained records concerning loans during that time, but did not know who maintained records about transfer of funds between offshore companies. However, he explained that a person named Mira Zhaksylykova at a separate company maintained documents about the transfer of funds between offshore companies. Plai tiffs ou sel also asked “ad ko hethe loa s issued UKB-6 were ever in default and whether Tradestock had ever repaid UKB-6 loans. Sadykov stated that the loans were repaid and not in default. Defense counsel also objected to this line of questio s as e o d the s ope of this Cou t s o de . LEGAL STANDARD FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS A magistrate judge has broad authority to impose discovery sanctions. Orders imposing sanctions are ordinarily considered non-dispositive, and therefore fall within the grant of Rule 72(a), unless the sanction employed disposes of a claim. Seena Int’l, Inc. v. One Step Up, Ltd., No. 15–CV–01095 (PKC)(BCM), 2016 WL 2865350, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2016) (quoting Lan v. Time Warner, Inc., 11 Civ. 2870(AT)(JCF), 2016 WL 928731, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016)). This rule extends to orders precluding the i t odu tio of spe ified e ide e, hi h a e p ope l characterized as non-dispositive, so lo g as the o de does ot holl dispose of a pa t s lai or defense . . . . Seena Int’l Inc., 2016 WL 2865350, at *10. 7 Whe e, as he e, sa tio s a e sought e ause a pa t has fail[ed] to o e a o de to p o ide o pe pe it dis o e , the otio is o di a il a al zed u de ‘ule 37(b)(2)(A), which its the ou t to issue fu the just o de s, i ludi g: (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence; (iii) striking pleadings in whole or in part; (iv) staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed; (v) dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part; (vi) rendering a default judgment against the disobedient party; or (vii) treating as contempt of court the failure to obey any order except an order to submit to a physical or mental examination. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). The court must also consider whether to order the disobedient party to pay the easo a le e pe ses, i ludi g atto e s fees i u ed the o i g pa t , u less the failu e as su sta tiall justified o othe i u sta es ake a a a d of e pe ses u just. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C). The only predicates to the imposition of sa tio s u de ‘ule di e ti g o plia e ith dis o e e uests a d a ea ou t o de o - o plia e ith that o de . Shanghai Weiyi Int’l Trade Co. v. Focus 2000 Corp., 15-CV-3533 (CM) (BCM), 2017 WL 2840279, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2017) (citing Salahuddin v. Harris, 782 F.2d 1127, 1131 (2d Cir. 1986)). Rule 37(b) applies ot ithsta di g a la k of ilful ess o ad faith, although su h fa to s a e relevant . . . to the sanction to be imposed for the failure. Oz v. Lorowitz, No. 09 Civ. 8 5532(RJH)(HBP), 2011 WL 803077, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISCUSSION The instant dispute has arisen because the parties disagree with respect to the precise meaning of this Cou t s o de li iti g uestio s to those related to the authentication of the Tradestock spreadsheets and related foundational questions. It also arises out of a dispute about the testimony needed to enter the Tradestock spreadsheets into evidence under the residual hearsay rule so the jury may consider the information in the spreadsheets for its truth.2 Fede al ‘ule of E ide e F‘E add esses the authentication and identification of evidence. It states that the party offering a document must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent lai s it is. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). This may be done by, among other things, offering the testimony of a witness with k o ledge that the ite a iti g, the is hat it is lai ed to e. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1). When the item is est e ide e ule e ui es the o igi al do u e t o a dupli ate p odu ed by a process or technique that accurately reproduces the original, absent genuine questions about the o igi al s authe ti it o i u sta es that would otherwise make it unfair to admit the duplicate. See Fed. R. Evid. 1001, 1002, and 1003. An authentic document is not necessarily admissible if it constitutes hearsay. Federal Rule of Evidence 807 F‘E , amended effective December 1, 2019, addresses when an out-of-court statement may be admitted for its truth if the statement is not otherwise 2 Importantly, if a statement is admitted into evidence, the jury does not assume the statement to be true, but evaluates the statement in the context of other evidence and testimony. Fed. R. Evid. 807 advisory committee s note to 2019 amendments. 9 admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803 or 804. Fed. R. Evid. 807. FRE 807 permits the ad issio of a state e t if it is suppo ted suffi ie t gua a tees of t ust o thi ess—after considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and evidence, if any, corroborating the statement; and . . . is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any othe e ide e that the p opo e t a o tai th ough easo a le effo ts. Fed. R. Evid. 807(a). The rule p o ides that the fo us fo t ust o thi ess is o i u sta tial gua a tees surrounding the making of the statement itself, as well as any independent evidence o o o ati g the state e t. Fed. ‘. E id. ad iso o ittee s ote to amendments. T iadou o te ds that Plai tiffs ide tifi atio of “ad ko as a use to eli it testi o Plaintiffs otherwise failed to obtain during discovery. In support of its motion, Triadou points to po tio s of “ad ko s depositio testi o showing that Sadykov had never seen the spreadsheets before ei g sho Plai tiffs ou sel i p epa atio fo his deposition. the Thus, according to Triadou, Sadykov was not competent to authenticate the documents or the information within them. Triadou also complains that Plaintiffs showed Sadykov other documents in addition to the Tradestock spreadsheets and, thus, their questioning went e o d the s ope of this Cou t s o de . Triadou argues that it is clear from the deposition transcript that the only purpose of “ad ko s deposition was to elicit information that has nothing to do with the Tradestock spreadsheets. Defendants say little about whether the questions posed to Sadykov would assist Plaintiffs in establishing the trustworthiness of the information in the spreadsheets for purposes of FRE 807, except to say that Sadykov did not explain the basis for his knowledge or recollection of specific transactions set forth in the 10 spreadsheets. Accordingly, Triadou contends that Sadykov is not competent to testify that the spreadsheets are what they purport to be, as required by FRE 901. Plaintiffs ou sel o te d that thei uestio s e e ithi the s ope of the Cou t s order because they were designed to elicit information needed to admit the information contained in the spreadsheets for its truth under FRE 807. They argue that they needed to evince the basis fo “ad ko s k o ledge a out the i fo atio i the sp eadsheets so the could ask him questions about the meaning of the information and the truthfulness of the information. In other words, they sought his testimony not to authenticate the spreadsheets, but rather, to discuss the meaning and authenticity of the information in the spreadsheets. In particular, they say the amounts of money and entities that transferred and received those amounts are accurate, but that the purpose of payment information on the spreadsheets is false. Another witness who was deposed prepared the spreadsheets and testified that the i fo atio as de i ed f o a k state e ts ut, a o di g to Plai tiffs ou sel, a gua l could not establish the embedded information describing the purpose of the transactions. Plai tiffs ou sel contend that Sadykov, who supervised UKB-6 when Tradestock provided funds for the acquisition of a company called Zhaikmunai, could testify about the trustworthiness and accuracy of the information describing the transactions reflected on the spreadsheets and the meaning of the information generally. They also contend that defense ou sel s epeated o je tio s fo la k of fou datio fo ed the s ope of uestio i g to broaden. The Court agrees ith T iadou. The Cou t s p io o de o te plated that a it ess with knowledge about how the spreadsheets were prepared would testify that the 11 spreadsheets are what they purport to be—a record of financial transactions. Foundational questions should ha e fo used o the it esses a kg ou d a d k o ledge a out ho the spreadsheets were prepared, including the source of the information and whether the witness knew about the reliability of the information on the spreadsheets and the basis for such knowledge. The uestio s Plai tiffs ou sel posed to “ad ko e e ot so focused. The most egregious examples of Plai tiffs ou sel goi g e o d the s ope of this Cou t s o de were their questions to the witness about documents other than the Tradestock spreadsheets and thei uestio s a out “ad ko s i te a tio s ith ep ese tati es of MeesPie so . Their questions about the meaning of the underlying information and details of certain transactions reflected on the spreadsheets were also beyond the s ope of this Cou t s o de . Defe se counsel could have questioned Sadykov about the meaning of the information on the spreadsheets but decided not to, presumably for strategic reasons. To the extent Plaintiffs wish to introduce evidence about the purpose of the transactions, that testimony should have been elicited from other witnesses during discovery. The Court permitted the late addition of witnesses because Plaintiffs stated they were needed for authentication purposes. The Court did not extend discovery for purposes of Plaintiffs obtaining additional testimony about details of the transactions on the spreadsheets, the operations of UKB-6 generally, or the relationship between and among companies listed on the spreadsheets. Thus, Plai tiffs counsel exceeded the s ope of this Cou t s o de . To the extent Triadou requests that Sadykov be barred from testifying at trial, that request is denied. Whether and for what purpose he will be permitted to testify will be decided by the Honorable Alison Nathan, who is the trial judge. T iadou s e uest that “ad ko s 12 deposition testimony be stricken as a sanction is granted, except as to the following portions of the deposition transcript: (1) the questions and answers at 1:01-10:23 and 12:06-23, as these are simply background questions that are appropriate for any witness in a deposition; (2) the questions and answers at 40:05-41:17, as these questions pertain to the nature of records maintained by UKB-6 generally and relate to whether the Tradestock spreadsheets are business records; and (3) the questions at 24:21-26:02, as these were directed at a particular transaction reflected on a Tradestock spreadsheet and the source of information about the purpose of the transaction.3 Additionally, because the motion does not pertain to questions posed by defense counsel to Sadykov, the testimony on pages 45 through 46 of the deposition transcript is not stricken. This sanction is appropriate because the Court circumscribed the scope of deposition uestio i g a d Plai tiffs ou sel dis ega ded that o de . To the e te t T iadou seeks atto e s fees a d osts asso iated ith the preparation fo a d o du t of “ad ko s depositio , thei e uest is de ied. Although Plai tiffs ou sel did not specifically question the witness about the information he provided and how he provided it to the author of the spreadsheets, based on the testi o eli ited Plai tiffs counsel from Sadykov, he appears to have had some basis for knowledge about the meaning and source of the information on the spreadsheets because he appears to have stated that he provided the information to another individual to include on the spreadsheets. (See Sadykov Dep. Tr. 24:21-26:02.) Triadou requested the opportunity to depose Sadykov and could have Plai tiffs ou sel did a poo jo of eli iti g i fo atio a out the authe ti it of the i fo atio o the spreadsheet about this transaction. Plai tiffs ou sel were permitted to, and could have asked the witness: whether he knew how the spreadsheets were prepared; whether he provided information about particular transactions on the spreadsheets to the persons who prepared the spreadsheet; and whether he knew the source and accuracy of the information he provided for inclusion on the spreadsheets. However, Plai tiffs ou sel e e asked these questions. Judge Nathan will determine if the non-stricken deposition testimony is admissible at trial. 3 13 asked him about the meaning of certain information in the chart. Because Triadou wanted the deposition and chose not to take the oppo tu it to e plo e the it ess s k o ledge a out the source and authenticity of information on the spreadsheet, it is inappropriate to award Triadou the full osts of p epa i g fo a d o du ti g “ad ko s depositio . Triadou was going to prepare for the deposition it requested regardless. Likewise, it had the opportunity to develop more information about the spreadsheets, but chose not to develop such testimony. Plaintiffs a e ot espo si le fo T iadou s st ategi hoi es a out the questions Triadou chose to ask the witness. However, the Court finds that it is appropriate to award Triadou atto e s fees a d costs associated with the conduct of 50 percent of the deposition because it is clear that Plai tiffs ou sel e eeded the pe issi le s ope of uestio i g a d asted the it ess s and defe se ou sel s ti e ith i app op iate uestio s du i g the depositio . Accordingly, T iadou s e uest fo atto e s fees a d osts asso iated ith this sa tio s otio is g a ted. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, T iadou s granted in part and denied in part. T iadou shall su otio fo sa tio s Doc. No. 1178) is it its appli atio fo atto e s fees a d costs consistent with this Order by March 20, 2020. Plai tiffs oppositio to the appli atio is due March 27, 2020. No reply will be permitted. The motions to seal at Doc. Nos. 1179, 1189 and 1191 are granted in part. The letter briefs and Exhibit 1 to T iadou s o i g lette ief, hi h is the “ad ko depositio t a s ipt, may not be filed under seal, except that portions of these documents discussing specific information on the Exhibit labeled PX252 pertaining to an ongoing criminal investigation may be redacted and filed under seal. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the 14 Motions at Doc. Nos. 1178, 1179, 1189, and 1191. The parties are directed to review this Cou t s e ised ules o e i g fili g do u e ts u de seal hi h o a e do e o ECF and to file redacted versions of their letter briefs and the Sadykov deposition transcript on ECF within seven days of this Order. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2020 New York, New York ______________________________ KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge 15
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
