United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2031

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Doc. # 1825-1 1834 , and denying Defendant's Motion to Seal 1837 and Relief Defendants' Motion to Strike 1849 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/23/21. (McHugh, C.)

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2031 Filed 07/23/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
Defendant, and
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI AHMED July 23, 2021
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.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION’S MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT A TO ITS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SEAL AND RELIEF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE
On March 12, 2021, Defendant Iftikar Ahmed filed a motion for living expenses [Doc.
# 1796], which was denied by the Court on April 30, 2021 [Doc. # 1930]. Defendant seeks
to seal Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Memorandum in Opposition
to Plaintiff’s Motion for Living Expenses as irrelevant, unreliable, defamatory, and
scandalous [Doc. # 1837]. Plaintiff moves to seal Exhibit A to its Memorandum [Doc. #
1834], which Relief Defendants move to strike [Doc. # 1849]. Defendant does not object to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal Exhibit A. Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s Motion to Seal [Doc. #
1902] and Relief Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Doc. # 1909].

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2031 Filed 07/23/21 Page 2 of 3

Documents filed with the Court have a presumption of public access and may be
sealed only upon a particularized showing of clear and compelling reasons. See D. Conn. L.
Civ. R. 5(e)(3). Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Memorandum [Doc. # 1826-1] not only includes
scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations levied by an anonymous source against Relief
Defendants but also includes the names of aliases used by Defendant in his dealings in India
and supports Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant lied about his income and employment status.
The Court agrees that Exhibit A should be sealed to prevent the scandalous allegations
from becoming public, and grants Plaintiff’s motion [Doc. # 1834]. Consequently, Relief
Defendants’ Motion to Strike [Doc. # 1849] is denied as “motions to strike are viewed
unfavorably and rarely granted,” Tucker v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D. Conn.
2013), and the same reputational harm that Relief Defendants fear can be avoided by
sealing the exhibit in lieu of striking it.
In his Motion to Seal, Defendant repeats many of his claims that the Court found
unpersuasive in his opposition to the SEC’s Motion to Unseal Its Motion to Preclude Further
Affidavits from Mr. Ahmed. (See Def.’s Response to SEC’s Reply in Supp. of its Mot. to Unseal
[Doc. # 1832]; Order Granting Pl. [SEC]’s Consolidated Mot. to Unseal Its Mot. to Preclude
Further Affidavits from Def. and Denying Def.’s Mot. to Seal and Mot. to Strike [Doc. #
1929].) The Court finds Defendant’s arguments similarly unpersuasive here. (See id.) See
also United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that the Court must
balance the strong presumption of openness against countervailing interests, like the
privacy of individuals, law enforcement concerns, and judicial efficiency). Thus,
Defendant’s Motion to Seal [Doc. # 1837] is denied.

2

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2031 Filed 07/23/21 Page 3 of 3

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [Doc. # 1834] is GRANTED. Relief Defendants’
Motion to Strike [Doc. # 1849] and Defendant’s Motion to Seal [Doc. # 1837] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________/s/_______________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 23rd day of July 2021.

3