City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov
- John Koeltl
- 1:15-cv-05345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In City of Almaty v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, Judge Nathan granted Triadou summary judgment against Almaty, denied it against BTA, and ruled on document sealing.
Almaty, BTA, Triadou, the Kazakh Entities, and the individuals and nonparties whose documents or information were subject to the sealing rulings were affected. The order granted Triadou summary judgment as to Almaty’s claims, denied it as to BTA’s claims, and governed public access to portions of the record.
What happened
City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and other parties sued Mukhtar Ablyazov and other defendants. In this order, the court addressed Triadou’s summary-judgment motion and requests to keep parts of the case record private.
The court granted Triadou’s summary-judgment motion as to Almaty’s claims but denied it as to BTA’s claims. The court also granted some requests to seal documents, denied others in predominant part, and ordered the parties to propose narrower redactions for certain filings, including a money-laundering expert’s report.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also denied in predominant part Gennady Petelin’s sealing motion, denied in predominant part the Kazakh Entities’ motion to seal the Dubinsky Report, granted in part and denied in part the motions concerning briefs and factual statements, and overruled Ilyas Khrapunov’s objections as moot.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazahkstan v. Mukhtar Ablyazov · No. 1:15-cv-05345
- John Koeltl
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
The court issued this public order alongside an opinion on Triadou’s motion for summary judgment. The order also addressed numerous requests to seal, or keep private, parts of the summary-judgment record. The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access, with stronger reasons required to seal materials that are important to the court’s decision.
Summary-judgment ruling
The court granted Triadou’s motion for summary judgment as to Almaty’s claims and denied it as to BTA’s claims. The order does not provide the full merits analysis of that ruling; it states that the analysis appears in the opinion filed concurrently under temporary seal.
Sealing rulings
- Triadou’s sealing motions: The court granted Triadou’s motions to seal Exhibits 52, 59, 73, 75, 77–79, 93–96, 98–104, 126, 209–10, 345–47, and
- The court found that these materials had minimal relevance to the summary-judgment motion, were not relied on in deciding it, and included sensitive financial or personal information concerning third parties. - Frank Monstrey’s sealing motions: The court granted the motions as to Exhibits 7, 11–12, 46, 176, and
- Triadou was ordered to publicly file redacted copies of Exhibits 7 and 12 and unsealed copies of Exhibits 13, 36, 37, and
- The Kazakh Entities were ordered to publicly file redacted copies of Exhibits 176 and
- - Gennady Petelin’s sealing motion: The court denied the motion in predominant part as to Exhibits 39, 49, and
- Triadou was ordered to publicly file Exhibits 39 and 49, with Ilyas Khrapunov’s address redacted from Exhibit 39 and page 228 of the deposition redacted from Exhibit
- The Kazakh Entities were ordered to publicly file Exhibit
- Triadou was also ordered to publicly file Exhibit 113, which Petelin had not sought to seal. - Dubinsky Report: The court denied in predominant part the Kazakh Entities’ motions to seal the money-laundering expert Bruce Dubinsky’s report, Exhibit
- The court found that the report was a judicial document because the parties relied on it in their summary-judgment filings and the court relied on it in deciding the motion. The Kazakh Entities were allowed to propose narrowly tailored redactions, including possible redactions concerning confidential sources, investigatory techniques, documents already ordered sealed, or unrelated third parties. The unredacted portions had to remain sufficient for the public to understand the expert’s conclusions and reasoning. - Briefs and factual statements: The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions to seal portions of their legal memoranda and Rule 56.1 factual statements. It ordered narrower redactions based only on materials the court had ordered sealed in this or earlier orders.
Other ruling and deadlines
The court overruled Ilyas Khrapunov’s objections to Judge Parker’s orders declining to unseal the Dubinsky Report as moot. Khrapunov could renew his motion after the court ruled on proposed redactions. The parties and other interested persons were also given deadlines of one week, two weeks, or three weeks—depending on the filing—to submit proposed redactions under seal. The order resolved the listed docket numbers.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.