United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 1709

ORDER denying 1314 Motion for Sanctions and 1348 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 12/11/2020. (McHugh, C.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
Defendant, and

Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
December 11, 2020

IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI AHMED
2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUNITY TRUST;
DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL HOLDINGS, LLC;
I.I. 1, a minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a
minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents; and I.I.
3, a minor child, by and through his next friends
IFTIKAR and SHALINI AHMED, his parents,
Relief Defendants.
RULING DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS ON OAK’S COUNSEL,
DAVID KEITH MOMBORQUETTE, PARTNER AT MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, AND
DENYING DAVID K. MOMBORQUETTE’S CROSS-MOTION TO STRIKE
Defendant moves for the Court to sanction Attorney David Keith Momborquette,
counsel for Oak Management, for his “unethical conduct unbecoming of his profession and
in violation of ethics guidelines of the American Bar Association (ABA).” (Def.’s Mot. for
Sanctions on Oak’s Counsel [Doc. # 1314] at 1.) The basis of Attorney Momborquette’s
allegedly unethical behavior is Defendant’s claim that Momborquette
called [Defendant’s counsel] at ungodly hours of the night time in India to suit his
own convenience with no regard to the time differences between India and the
United States and he threatened [Defendant’s counsel] with consequences for
“unethical conduct.” Mr. Momborquette alleged on the call that [Defendant’s
counsel] does not own his own domain and that he has “created multiple fake email
accounts” to aid the Defendant.

(Id. at 2.) Attorney Momborquette denies these allegations and requests that the Court
strike Defendant’s motion from the docket as it “contains unsubstantiated, scandalous, and
immaterial assertions” that may be harmful to his professional reputation. (David K.
Momborquette’s Cross-Mot. to Strike Def.’s Mot. for Sanctions [Doc. # 1348] at 1.) For the
following reasons, both motions are denied.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c), the Court may sanction attorneys who
violate Rule 11(b), requiring attorneys to present only those pleadings, written motions, or
other paper that “(1) [are] not presented for any improper purpose . . . ;(2) [are] warranted
by existing law; (3) [have] evidentiary support . . . ; and (4) [which only] den[y] factual
contentions [that] are warranted [by] the evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Rule 11 sanctions are
intended “to deter baseless filings in district court and thus streamline the administration
and procedure of federal courts,” not to monitor the behavior of attorneys in their dealings
with one another.1 Schiel v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., No. 3:96CV1742 WWE, 2007 WL
735786, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 2, 2007). Thus, as the Court may only sanction improper
pleadings, written motions, or “other paper,” and Defendant does not allege that Attorney
Momborquette filed any such papers, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.
Moreover, Defendant has offered no evidence to support his claims. He fails to
identify the date or time of the alleged phone call, produces no phone records
demonstrating that such a call was actually received, and offers no affidavit from the
allegedly offended counsel attesting to the existence and substance of the call. Defendant
also suggests, without any evidentiary support, that Mr. Momborquette is responsible for
“sen[ding] goons to the residence of [his] widowed mother [] to harass her.” (Def.’s Mot. at
3.) Without persuasive proof, the Court will not credit this seemingly preposterous claim.

State bar associations are responsible for disciplining attorneys for their interpersonal misdeeds. See Miller v.
Sutton, No. 3:15-CV-1111 (MPS), 2016 WL 3976540, at *12 (D. Conn. July 21, 2016), aff'd, 697 F. App'x 27 (2d
Cir. 2017) (abstaining from intervening in disciplinary proceedings because “[a]ttorney discipline proceedings
are state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions”).
1

2

The Court now turns to Attorney Momborquette’s cross-motion to strike or, in the
alternative, seal Defendant’s motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) gives the district
court power to strike “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” from
pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “Pleadings” are defined as complaints, answers, and reply
briefs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7. Requests for sanctions fall into the category of “motions and other
papers,” id., and are therefore not included within the scope of Rule 12(f), see Ricci v.
Destefano, No. 3:04-CV-1109(JBA), 2006 WL 2666081, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 15, 2006)
(“[M]otions to strike are only appropriately directed to pleadings.”); Britt v. Elm City Cmtys.,
No. 3:17-CV-02159 (JCH), 2018 WL 3574866, at *1 (D. Conn. July 24, 2018) (denying a
motion to strike an objection to a motion because the objection was not a pleading). While
Mr. Momborquette suggests that a district court’s inherent power to manage its docket
includes the ability to “strike any filed paper which it determines to be abusive or
otherwise improper,” Muench Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Pub. Co., No.
09-CIV-2669 (LAP), 2015 WL 4757601, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2015), this Court will be
guided by precedent in the District of Connecticut that motions to strike are generally
disfavored, even when appropriately applied to the pleadings of a case. See Britt, 2018 WL
3574866, at *1 (“[M]otions to strike are not favored.”) (quoting IMG Fragrance Brands, LLC
v. Houbigant, Inc., No. 09-CIV-3655 (LAP), 2009 WL 5088750, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18,
2009)); D'Alosio v. EDAC Techs. Corp., No. 16-CV-769 (VAB), 2017 WL 1439663, at *2 (D.
Conn. Apr. 21, 2017) (“Motions to strike under Rule 12(f) are generally disfavored.”)
(internal quotation omitted); Cummings v. Bradley, No. 3:11-CV-00751 (AVC), 2013 WL
1149985, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 19, 2013) (“Such motions [to strike] are disfavored.”). Mr.
Momborquette’s motion to strike is denied.
While recognizing the disparaging nature of Defendant’s allegations, the Court
further notes that, in order to preserve the integrity of the courts and public confidence in
the judicial process, “docket sheets enjoy a presumption of openness,” which is only
3

“rebuttable upon demonstration that suppression is essential to preserve higher values and
is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83,
95-96 (2d Cir. 2004); see also Crossman v. Astrue, 714 F. Supp. 2d 284, 287 (D. Conn. 2009)
(noting that documents pertaining to “personal privacy, public safety, or a business's
proprietary information” may justifiably be placed under seal.) To successfully rebut the
presumption of openness, the movant must “identify the specific prejudice or oppression
that will be caused by disclosure, . . . [including] the degree to which the subject matter is
traditionally considered private rather than public.” Sardarian v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt.
Agency, No. 3:19-CV-910 (CSH), 2019 WL 8331444, at *3 (D. Conn. Sept. 16, 2019),
reconsideration denied, No. 3:19-CV-910 (CSH), 2019 WL 5417778 (D. Conn. Oct. 23, 2019)
(internal quotations omitted). While Mr. Momborquette’s concerns about reputational
harm may be valid, his argument that these allegations will necessarily result in specific
oppression is unsubstantiated, particularly considering the incredulity of Defendant’s
claims. Additionally, Mr. Momborquette does not allege a privacy interest in any
information revealed in Defendant’s motion. Thus, in light of the strong presumption of
openness afforded to the court’s docket and lacking the identification of a specific,
identifiable harm, Mr. Momborquette’s cross-motion to seal is also denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for sanctions [Doc. # 1314] and Mr.
Momborquette’s cross-motion to strike [Doc. # 1348] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/_______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 11th day of December 2020.

4