Yukos Oil Company v. Daniel Caleb Feldman

Background

Yukos Oil Company and other legal entities associated with it sued Daniel Caleb Feldman, who had been employed by Yukos Oil as a corporate secretary. The plaintiffs alleged that Feldman took money from them through various schemes. After a three-week trial in March 2019, a jury found Feldman liable for two breaches of fiduciary duty and awarded the plaintiffs nominal damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit substantially affirmed the judgment.

More than six years later, Feldman, representing himself, moved for relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). He alleged that the plaintiffs hired Aviram Azari, whom the opinion describes as a convicted Israeli hacker-for-hire, to access Feldman’s emails and gain a strategic advantage in the litigation. The plaintiffs denied the allegations and said they had never heard of Azari or had a direct or indirect business relationship with him.

Rule 60(b) Framework

Rule 60(b) allows a court to provide relief from a final judgment in specified circumstances, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or misconduct by an opposing party. Rule 60(b)(6) is a catchall provision for other reasons that justify relief, but it applies only in narrow circumstances involving extraordinary conditions. The court explained that reasons fitting one of the more specific provisions cannot ordinarily be used to avoid that provision’s limitations.

A motion based on fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct under Rule 60(b)(3) must be filed within one year after the judgment. Rule 60(b)(6) does not have that specific one-year limit, but it cannot be used to circumvent the time limit for claims that belong under Rule 60(b)(3).

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that the substance of Feldman’s allegations—that the plaintiffs directed the hacking of his personal emails with his attorney—fell within Rule 60(b)(3)’s coverage of fraud or misconduct by an opposing party. Because Feldman filed the motion several years after the one-year deadline, the court ruled that the motion could not be brought under Rule 60(b)(6) and was time-barred under Rule 60(b)(3).

The court considered that hacking a litigation opponent could potentially present extraordinary circumstances because it could undermine confidence in the judicial process. It nevertheless held that the motion would fail even under Rule 60(b)(6). Although the opinion states that Feldman appeared to have been a victim of hacking by Azari during the litigation, Feldman’s evidence did not persuasively show that the plaintiffs directed the hacking. His evidence largely involved alleged connections among individuals associated with Yukos, entities connected to Azari, and other organizations. The court said those circumstantial connections, even if true, would not establish that the plaintiffs hired Azari or directed him to hack Feldman’s emails. Feldman also did not show that information obtained through the alleged hacking advantaged the plaintiffs or materially influenced the verdict.

Disposition

The court denied Feldman’s motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6), identified as Docket Entries 457 and 462. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan signed the order on September 17, 2025.