United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2092

Order GRANTING Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion to Seal Exhibit E of Its Notice of Additional Evidence of Defendant's False Statements 1880 and DENYING Defendant's Motion to Strike 1883 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 10/15/2021. (Canevari, D.)

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 October 15, 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 E OF ITS NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FALSE STATEMENTS AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO STRIKE
In further support of its Motion to Preclude Further Affidavits from Iftikar Ahmed
[Doc. # 1795], which was denied by this Court on May 12, 2021 [Doc. # 1960], Plaintiff
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a notice of additional evidence on April 8,
2021. (See Notice of Additional Evid. of Def.’s False Statements [Doc. # 1877].) SEC moves to
seal Exhibit E of its Notice because it contains an image of Defendant’s mother’s Indian
passport. (Pl.’s Mot. to Seal Ex. E [Doc. # 1878-8] of the SEC’s Not. of Additional Evid. of Def.’s
False Statements [Doc. # 1880].) Defendant moves to strike the entirety of the Notice and its
attachments. (Def.’s Mot. to Strike SEC’s Notice of Additional Evid. of Def.’s False Statements
[Doc. # 1883].)

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 E to Plaintiff’s Notice [Doc. # 1878-5] contains the private biographical
information of a non-party to which the public does not enjoy a right of access. Defendant’s
mother’s privacy interest far outweighs any public interest in disclosure of the private
biographical information contained in a photocopy of her passport. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion
to seal Exhibit E [Doc. # 1880] is granted.
A court may strike “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous material”
from a pleading or motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). “[M]otions to strike are viewed unfavorably
and rarely granted,” and the power to grant a motion to strike “is vested in the trial court’s
sound discretion.” Tucker v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 936 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D. Conn. 2013). The
movant “‘bears a heavy burden’ to establish the basis for the motion.” Id. (quoting Impulsive
Music v. Pomodoro Grill, Inc., No. 08–CV–6293, 2008 WL 4998474, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 19,
2008)).
Defendant argues that the SEC has no basis for its prejudicial claims that Defendant’s
mother acted as his nominee in investing in and conducting business in India. (Def.’s Mot. to
Strike SEC’s Notice of Additional Evid. of Def.’s False Statements [Doc. # 1883] at 2.) He
further claims that this allegation is irrelevant to the underlying dispute. (Id.) However, the
SEC’s Notice contains documentation supporting its proposition in the form of multiple
exhibits, including copies of corporate records, scans of Defendant’s Indian identification
cards, and examples of the Defendant’s signature and his mother’s signature for the Court’s
comparison. (See Exs. A-G [Docs. ## 1877-1-7].) While Defendant contends that the SEC’s
assertions are incorrect, he has not provided verifiable evidence to show their inaccuracy.
Further, since Defendant has requested that this Court release fees because of his indigency,
and thus, has placed his indigency and credibility at issue, the SEC’s claims are not irrelevant.
(See e.g., Def.’s Emergency Mot. for Release of Funds for Living Expenses [Doc. # 1796].) The
2

Court concludes that the Notice was properly filed and Defendant’s Motion to Strike [Doc. #
1883] is denied.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal [Doc. # 1880] is GRANTED and Defendant’s
Motion to Strike [Doc. # 1883] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________/s/___________________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 15th day of October 2021.

3