City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater
- John Koeltl
- 1:19-cv-02645
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In City of Almaty v. Sater, Judge Parker denied Artal-Burger’s motion to quash subpoenas and ordered her deposition.
Non-party attorney Diane Artal-Burger was required to appear for a seven-hour deposition; the plaintiffs, City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC, were allowed to pursue that deposition.
What happened
In City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC v. Felix Sater, et al., non-party attorney Diane Artal-Burger, representing herself, challenged subpoenas seeking documents and her deposition. She said she had few documents, lacked access to former email accounts, could not remember relevant events, and that a deposition would be burdensome.
The plaintiffs argued that Artal-Burger had relevant information from her prior legal work for Triadou SPV SA and related entities. They said questioning her about documents and transactions could refresh her memory, including matters involving the Tri-County Mall and Syracuse investments.
Judge Katharine H. Parker ruled that the document-subpoena dispute was moot because Artal-Burger had responded and the plaintiffs did not challenge that response. The judge denied the request to quash the deposition subpoena, finding that the deposition was relevant, limited to one day, proportional to the case, and not made unduly burdensome by the COVID-19 pandemic. Artal-Burger was ordered to appear for a seven-hour deposition in June or July 2020.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater · No. 1:19-cv-02645
- John Koeltl
- May 28, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs alleged that Felix Sater, Daniel Ridloff, and defendant companies helped Mukhtar Ablyazov and Viktor Khrapunov launder money allegedly stolen from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs asserted claims including unjust enrichment, money had and received, fraud, conversion, conspiracy under English law, and punitive damages.
Diane Artal-Burger was not a party to the case. She was an attorney proceeding without a lawyer and had previously represented Triadou SPV SA and several Triadou affiliates while working at Rosabianca & Associates PLLC. The plaintiffs served her with a document subpoena and a deposition subpoena. She moved to quash both subpoenas and requested reimbursement of $40 for printing and mailing costs.
The document subpoena sought documents from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2016, concerning numerous entities and communications with various people. Artal-Burger said she had only a few documents, mostly involving accounting, billing, and payment for her legal services. She said one more substantive email chain was privileged and confidential. She also asserted that she lacked relevant knowledge or memories and that a deposition would be burdensome, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 requires the issuing party to take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person served with a subpoena. The court must quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of privileged material without an applicable exception or waiver, or that subjects a person to undue burden. Under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The same discovery scope applies to non-parties.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the challenge to the document subpoena was moot because Artal-Burger had responded to it and the plaintiffs did not contest the adequacy of her response. The court therefore addressed only the deposition subpoena.
The court found that Artal-Burger could possess relevant information because she had represented Triadou and its affiliates and communicated with people who knew facts relevant to the case. The plaintiffs also possessed documents bearing her name that could be shown to her during questioning to refresh her memory. The court concluded that her claimed lack of memory was not enough to quash the deposition because her memory might be refreshed.
The court rejected the argument that the deposition was unduly burdensome or disproportionate. It limited the deposition to one day, or seven hours, and found that Artal-Burger would need little preparation because she had few documents. The plaintiffs agreed to schedule the deposition on a convenient day within the next two months. The court also found that COVID-19 concerns did not make the deposition unduly burdensome because it could be conducted remotely by video.
Disposition
The court’s conclusion states that Artal-Burger’s motions to quash the subpoenas were denied. It ordered her to make herself available for one day, lasting seven hours, to be deposed in June or July 2020.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.