United States v. The M/Y Amadea
United States v. The M/Y Amadea, a Motor Yacht Bearing International Maritime Organization No. 1012531, Including All Fixtures, Fittings, Manuals, Stocks, Stores, Inventories, and Each Lifeboat, Tender, and Other Appu
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In United States v. The M/Y Amadea, Judge Ho granted some sealing requests, partly granted and partly denied others, and denied one without prejudice.
The Government, Eduard Khudainatov, Millemarin Investments, Ltd., proposed deposition witnesses, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed filings.
What happened
United States v. The M/Y Amadea concerned requests by the Government and the Claimants to seal letters, motions, and other papers related to discovery disputes. The documents included information about possible deposition locations, Mr. Khudainatov’s health, proposed witnesses, and a deposition notice.
Judge Ho found that the documents were judicial records, so the public generally had a right to access them. He ruled that protecting sensitive information about U.S. foreign relations justified permanently sealing five documents, while medical and residential information justified sealing only limited portions of two other documents.
The court granted the requests at ECF Nos. 319, 325, 331, 339, 362, and 408; granted in part and denied in part the requests at ECF Nos. 368 and 388; and denied without prejudice the request at ECF No. 347. Judge Ho required redacted versions of two documents and temporarily kept two others sealed while allowing further requests for permanent sealing.
The detailed version
- United States v. The M/Y Amadea · No. 1:23-cv-09304
- Ho
- Jan. 10, 2025
Background
The court considered multiple requests by the Government and by Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments, Ltd., collectively identified as the Claimants, to seal filings in this civil forfeiture case. The filings concerned discovery disputes, including the locations of depositions, Mr. Khudainatov’s deposition, his health status, proposed witnesses, and a deposition notice.
The court explained that the public and press generally have a qualified First Amendment right to access judicial documents. A filing is a judicial document when it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Sealing is allowed when specific findings show that it is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly limited to that purpose. The court also noted that the public-access presumption is weaker for documents submitted with discovery-related motions.
Court’s analysis
The requests at ECF Nos. 319, 325, 331, 339, and 362 concerned letters and a motion about deposition locations and Mr. Khudainatov’s deposition. The documents referred to countries being considered as deposition locations. The court found that revealing those countries could disclose sensitive information about U.S. relations with foreign governments. It therefore concluded that protecting U.S. foreign relations outweighed the public-access presumption and ordered ECF Nos. 320, 326, 332, 340, and 363 permanently sealed.
The requests at ECF Nos. 368 and 388 concerned ECF Nos. 369 and 389, letters about Mr. Khudainatov’s health status. The court found that medical and residential information should be protected, but also found that the documents contained more than that information and had not been filed in redacted form. It therefore did not permit the documents to remain entirely sealed. Instead, it ordered ECF Nos. 369 and 389 to remain under seal in unredacted form and required the Claimants to file public versions with narrowly tailored redactions protecting personal medical and residential information.
The request at ECF No. 347 sought permanent sealing of ECF No. 348, a letter identifying potential witnesses whose depositions had been discussed in discovery motions. The Claimants argued that disclosure could interfere with efforts to obtain approval and schedule the depositions. The court found that the depositions had not occurred and that discovery had closed, making the need for continued secrecy unclear. It therefore denied the request without prejudice and allowed the Claimants to file a renewed motion by January 24, 2025, explaining more specifically why the witness identities should remain sealed.
The Government’s request at ECF No. 408 sought temporary sealing of ECF No. 409, a deposition notice, while the Claimants considered seeking permanent sealing. The court granted that request pending a motion for permanent sealing, which had to be filed by January 24, 2025.
Disposition
The court granted the requests at ECF Nos. 319, 325, 331, 339, 362, and
- It granted in part and denied in part the requests at ECF Nos. 368 and
- It denied without prejudice the request at ECF No.
- ECF Nos. 320, 326, 332, 340, 363, 369, and 389 were to remain sealed with access limited to court personnel and the applicable parties. The Claimants had to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 369 and 389 by January 17,
- ECF Nos. 348 and 409 were to remain temporarily sealed until at least January 24, 2025, or longer if a motion for permanent sealing was filed before then. Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the Clerk to terminate the listed sealing-request entries.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.