Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA

Background

The court had previously ruled that BNP Paribas’s guilty plea and related admissions in a separate criminal case were generally admissible in this civil case, subject to later decisions about the exact statements that could be read to the jury. The court ordered the parties to submit a table identifying those statements and stating each side’s position.

The parties submitted the table. This order resolves the disagreements reflected in that submission. The order states that the court’s rulings are shown through cross-outs and redactions in the attached table.

Evidentiary rulings

The court stated that the defendants’ plea agreement was not itself a statement of facts and was irrelevant and cumulative under Rules 401 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court also stated that transcripts of the sentencing hearing contained a lengthy, repetitive exchange that duplicated the Statement of Facts and would be cumulative and confusing to the jury under Rule 403.

The defendants sought to admit paragraphs 30, 34, and 35 of the Statement of Facts. Those paragraphs described certain conduct undertaken on the advice of counsel. The court held that the paragraphs were not admissible as admissions by a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2) or as statements against interest under Rule 804(b)(3), because the defendants offered them for their own benefit. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the rule requiring completeness of statements supported admission of the paragraphs. It concluded that the portions offered by the plaintiffs were understandable without the additional paragraphs and that admitting the defendants’ preferred paragraphs would confuse and mislead the jury.

The court therefore excluded paragraphs 30, 34, and 35 from evidence in their entirety.

Next steps and effect

The order directed the plaintiffs to file, by June 24, 2025, one document listing passage by passage the statements eligible to be read to the jury under the court’s rulings. The parties were then directed to prepare a revised table removing redundant and cumulative admissions and limiting the material to statements admissible and readable to the jury. That revised table was due by July 8, 2025.

Judge Hellerstein’s order concerns what evidence may be presented to the jury and the parties’ required evidence-related filings. It does not state a final disposition of the underlying civil claims.