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 Moses & Singer’s motion to quash a deposition subpoena, limiting testimony to seven hours.
Moses & Singer LLP had to appear for a deposition, subject to a seven-hour limit, while City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC could conduct the deposition and ask about relevant nonprivileged factual information.
What happened
In City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC v. Felix Sater, plaintiffs sought deposition testimony from Moses & Singer LLP, a law firm that represented Sater in transactions involved in the case. Moses & Singer argued that its document production was enough and that the deposition would be burdensome, harassing, and invade attorney-client privilege.
The court found that Moses & Singer had relevant factual information about money transferred through its accounts, negotiations concerning an agreement used in Sater’s defense, and other transactions. The court said the subpoena was not overly broad and that factual information was not privileged, although Moses & Singer could object to particular questions seeking privileged information.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the motion to quash but limited the deposition to seven total hours, split between two witnesses if necessary. The deposition had to occur by March 31, 2022, and the parties had to submit a status report by April 15, 2022.
The detailed version
- City of Almaty, Kazakhstan v. Sater · No. 1:19-cv-02645
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 24, 2022
Background
City of Almaty, Kazakhstan and BTA Bank JSC sued Felix Sater, two companies he owned, Daniel Ridloff, a company owned by Ridloff, and other entities. The plaintiffs alleged that Sater and Ridloff helped launder money allegedly stolen from the plaintiffs through shell entities and investments. The plaintiffs asserted claims including unjust enrichment, money had and received, fraud, conversion, conspiracy under English law, and punitive damages.
Moses & Singer LLP represented Sater in corporate matters and transactions relevant to the case. The plaintiffs served Moses & Singer with document subpoenas, and the firm produced documents, including information about money transferred through its accounts. The plaintiffs then served a deposition subpoena. Moses & Singer moved to quash it, arguing that its document production was sufficient and that the deposition would be burdensome, harassing, and designed to invade attorney-client privilege.
Court’s analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a subpoena may require a nonparty to produce documents or provide deposition testimony. The court must quash or modify a subpoena that requires disclosure of protected information without an applicable exception or waiver, or that subjects the recipient to undue burden. Discovery under Rule 26 generally covers nonprivileged information relevant and proportional to the claims or defenses.
The court held that Moses & Singer possessed relevant information about the flow of money through its accounts in transactions involving Sater. It also found that the firm had the most direct information about negotiations concerning a release agreement that Sater relied on as a defense, because Sater did not participate in those negotiations and the other negotiator was deceased. The court stated that the plaintiffs sought factual information rather than privileged communications.
The court rejected Moses & Singer’s argument that there is a presumption against deposing lawyers. It explained that the cited cases mainly involved opposing counsel in the same litigation, while Moses & Singer was not opposing counsel in this case and was being treated as a fact witness. The court also said that Moses & Singer could object to individual questions that sought privileged information, with disputed refusals to answer addressed after the deposition.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Moses & Singer’s motion to quash. The court limited the deposition to seven total hours because some information could be obtained from the parties or from documents already produced. If two witnesses were needed, the plaintiffs had to divide the seven hours between them. The deposition was ordered to occur by March 31, 2022, and the parties were ordered to provide a status report by April 15, 2022.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.