United States v. The M/Y Amadea

Background

The Government noticed the deposition of claimant Eduard Khudainatov in July 2024. After earlier disputes about where the deposition should occur, the Court’s November 15, 2024 order required it to take place either in New York or in a foreign location where the Government could conduct it without a mutual legal assistance request or could obtain permission to conduct it. The Court extended discovery through December 20, 2024, to help arrange the deposition.

The parties later agreed to hold the deposition in a foreign country where the United States had permission to conduct it. They scheduled it for December 13, 2024. On December 10, however, Khudainatov’s counsel told the Government that a medical emergency prevented him from traveling. Claimants later submitted materials concerning an alleged Covid-19 diagnosis. The Government challenged the reliability of those materials, including through a declaration from Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Todd McGee. Claimants submitted additional exhibits, but the Court found that those submissions did not address the assertions in the McGee declaration.

Issues and legal standard

The Court considered the timing and location of the deposition. Generally, the party that notices a deposition may choose its location. That presumption can be overcome by showing good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). In deciding whether good cause exists, courts consider cost, convenience, and efficiency, and retain discretion to select the deposition site.

Court’s analysis

The Court credited the Government’s submissions, including the McGee declaration, and found that they undermined the reliability of the records concerning Khudainatov’s initial Covid-19 diagnosis. The Court also noted that the claimants had not addressed the assertions in the McGee declaration. It therefore found that the claimants had not presented credible evidence establishing good cause to postpone the deposition beyond the week of January 13, 2025.

The Court also held that Khudainatov had not overcome the presumption favoring the location selected by the Government, which was the noticing party. The Court had previously rejected a request to conduct the deposition remotely, and the claimants provided no basis to reconsider that decision.

Regarding the choice between New York and a foreign location, the Court found that cost was clearly lower in New York because counsel were located in the United States, with at least a plurality, and possibly a majority, based in New York. Although Khudainatov would need to travel to New York, the Court found that travel would be required for every location the parties had considered. The Court also found that convenience favored New York and that the claimants’ objections to travel were either manageable, including through a safe-passage letter, or too conclusory to establish good cause. Finally, the Court found that litigation efficiency strongly favored New York because the location issue had produced months of negotiations and motion practice, and because the Court found the reasons for canceling the previously scheduled foreign deposition not credible.

Disposition

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the Government’s motion to compel Khudainatov’s deposition. The deposition was to take place in the United States during the week of January 13, 2025, subject to the Government providing a safe-passage letter. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 363 and 364.