City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-02645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
City of Almaty v. Sater: Judge Parker denied most sealing requests, required unredacted filings, and requested more justification for Exhibit J.
The plaintiffs, their counsel, MeM Energy Partners LLC, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. The order required the plaintiffs to file unredacted versions of specified materials and provide additional justification for sealing Exhibit J.
What happened
In City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC v. Felix Sater, et al., the plaintiffs sought a default judgment against MeM Energy Partners LLC and asked to seal parts of their filings.
The court explained that documents submitted with a motion generally carry a strong public-access presumption, even if they were previously confidential during discovery. It found that the plaintiffs had not given enough specific reasons to seal Exhibits F and I, Exhibits K, N, and S, or parts of their brief.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied those sealing requests and ordered the plaintiffs to file unredacted versions of the brief and Exhibits F, I, K, N, and S. She did not decide the request concerning Exhibit J and instead ordered the plaintiffs to submit more justification by November 22, 2019.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater · No. 1:19-cv-02645
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 13, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs moved for a default judgment against MeM Energy Partners LLC because MeM had not appeared or answered the complaint. In support of that motion, the plaintiffs asked to file under seal portions of their legal memorandum and Exhibits F, I, J, K, N, and S. Some of the material had been designated confidential under a discovery protective order in a related action.
Legal standard
The court explained that the First Amendment creates a strong presumption that the public may access judicial documents, including complaints and written materials submitted with pretrial and dispositive motions. A party seeking to seal such material must provide specific findings showing that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value and that the restriction is narrowly tailored. Confidentiality during discovery does not automatically justify sealing a document once it is submitted to the court.
Rulings on the exhibits
The court denied the request to seal Exhibit F, an email chain, and Exhibit I, excerpts of deposition testimony. The plaintiffs and Felix Sater had not provided specific information showing why those documents should remain confidential after being submitted with a dispositive motion.
The court did not finally grant or deny the request concerning Exhibit J, an expert report by Bruce Dubinsky. The court recognized that the report described confidential information connected to Kazakhstan's ongoing criminal investigations and that some of that information might warrant protection. But the plaintiffs had not identified which portions concerned those investigations, which portions came from non-parties, or whether those parties objected to public disclosure. The court ordered the plaintiffs to submit a supplemental letter brief explaining their request to seal all or part of Exhibit J by November 22, 2019.
The court denied the requests to seal Exhibits K and N, which the plaintiffs described as containing sensitive financial, settlement, and business information. It also denied the request to seal Exhibit S, excerpts of Ilyas Khrapunov's deposition testimony. The court found that these materials were not sufficiently sensitive to overcome the public's access to judicial documents.
Ruling on the brief and required filings
The court denied the plaintiffs' request to seal certain sections of their brief supporting the default-judgment motion. It found that the need for public access to the full brief outweighed the interest in keeping the information confidential.
Judge Katharine H. Parker directed plaintiffs' counsel to file an unredacted version of the brief at Docket Entry 69 and unredacted versions of Exhibits F, I, K, N, and S at Docket Entry 70 by November 22, 2019. The court separately required the supplemental letter brief addressing Exhibit J by the same date. This order addressed sealing and filing requirements; the opinion text does not state whether the court granted or denied the motion for default judgment against MeM.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.