United States v. The M/Y Amadea

Background

The court considered a motion in limine—a request to decide evidentiary issues before a hearing—filed by Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments, Ltd. The claimants sought three forms of relief concerning Alisa Gadzhieva and Gulnara Kerimova:

The Government cross-moved to preclude the witnesses’ declarations as inadmissible hearsay, meaning out-of-court statements offered as evidence.

Discovery request

The court denied the request to reopen discovery. Fact discovery had already been extended four times and had lasted more than eleven months. The claimants first identified Gadzhieva and Kerimova as witnesses on October 31, 2024, approximately two weeks before the then-operative November 15 discovery deadline. The court later extended discovery to December 20, 2024, but only to complete specific depositions identified in an earlier order—not to permit additional discovery concerning these witnesses.

The claimants noticed the witnesses’ depositions on December 4, 2024, proposing that they occur in a foreign country where the Government lacked authorization to participate in those depositions. The court later granted the Government’s motion for a protective order concerning the depositions. In the present order, the court found that the claimants had not shown good cause for a fifth discovery extension and had not offered a realistic plan that would allow the depositions to occur.

Requests concerning testimony and declarations

The court denied the request to allow the witnesses to testify remotely or by declaration and held that their testimony should be precluded. Applying four factors concerning discovery violations— the explanation for the failure, the importance of the testimony, prejudice to the opposing party, and whether a continuance was possible—the court found that three factors favored preclusion and one weighed slightly against it.

The court found that the claimants had not adequately explained why the witnesses were not made available for depositions during discovery. It recognized that their testimony could be important because the claimants said it would refute the Government’s theory that the claimants sold the Amadea. But the court also noted the claimants’ assertion that other witnesses corroborated the same testimony, suggesting that it might be cumulative. The court found prejudice because the Government had no opportunity to depose the witnesses, and found that another continuance would cause expense and delay and would likely be futile.

The court separately ruled that the declarations were not admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. It found that the declarations were classic hearsay and that the circumstances did not justify using the residual exception, which courts should apply sparingly. The court therefore held that Gadzhieva and Kerimova could not testify at the upcoming evidentiary hearing and that their declarations were not admissible. Because of that ruling, the question of remote testimony was moot.

Government evidence about the witnesses

The court denied the claimants’ alternative request to bar the Government from introducing any evidence concerning Gadzhieva and Kerimova. The claimants had not identified authority supporting such a broad prohibition. The court stated that it would consider specific objections to particular evidence during the hearing, but it would not categorically prohibit the Government from presenting evidence about the witnesses.

Disposition

Judge Dale E. Ho denied the claimants’ motion in limine, granted the Government’s motion in limine to preclude the witnesses’ declarations, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 373.