United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2197

ORDER granting with modification Defendant's and Ms. Ahmed's Motions for a Protective Order 2158 and 2159 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 3/2/2022. (Walker, M.)

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 March 2, 2022
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 WITH MODIFICATION MS. AHMED’S AND DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
The Court has ordered Defendant and Ms. Ahmed to produce to the Receiver all of
their income tax returns (see Min. Entry [Doc. # 2132]), which the Receiver has represented
are necessary to evaluate the tax liabilities associated with liquidation of the Receivership
Assets and to fulfill his obligations under the Appointment Order. (See Receiver’s Application
to Employ V&L [Doc. # 2141] at 3 n.2.) In response to the Court’s order that Defendant and
Relief Defendants provide the Receiver with their personal income tax returns, they request
that the Court issue a protective order restricting access to and use of those tax returns. (See
Ms. Ahmed’s Mot. for Protective Order [Doc. # 2158]; Def.’s Mot. Regarding his Personal Tax
Returns [Doc. # 2159].) In response, the Receiver offers “no objection to the Defendants’ tax
returns being produced pursuant to a reasonable protective order that protects the
legitimate privacy interests of the Defendant and Ms. Ahmed” so long as it permits him and

the professionals he has employed to conduct the tax analysis required by the Court’s orders.
(Receiver’s Consol. Resp. [Doc. # 2178] at 2.) However, the Receiver views the Court’s
Standing Protective Order [Doc. # 6] as sufficient to protect the tax materials at issue. The
SEC echoes the Receiver’s position but adds that “[t]he Motions should be denied, and
Defendant and Relief Defendant should promptly produce all relevant tax returns” to the
Receiver, not “simply newly ‘amended’ returns.” (Pl. SEC’s Consol. Opp’n [Doc. # 2179] at 2.)
At the outset of this matter, the Court issued a standing protective order, which
applies to “information, documents, and excerpts from documents supplied by the parties to
each other . . . in response to discovery requests.” (See Standing Protective Order [Doc. # 6].)
On the one hand, Ms. Ahmed argues that the Standing Protective Order does not protect her
interests. (See Ms. Ahmed’s Mot. at 7.) On the other hand, Ms. Ahmed represents that she “has
no issue with producing those [income tax returns] to the Receiver subject to the Standing
Protective Order” but she proposes her own protective order designed to address her
confidentiality concerns. (Id. at 2; Proposed Protective Order for Tax Returns [Doc. # 21581].)
As an initial matter, income tax returns and tax information1 must remain confidential
by statute. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103 (forbidding officers and employees of the court, and any other
person who gains access to tax returns or return information, from disclosing that
information). The Standing Protective Order requires all confidential information to retain
that status throughout the litigation.2 This applies to the Receiver, who will be the recipient
of Defendant and Ms. Ahmed’s confidential income tax information, but the Standing

26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2) sets out in detail which documents and data constitute “tax
information.”
1

In addition to the Standing Protective Order and federal statute, the Court reminds the
Receiver and the Parties that any filings with the Court must conform to the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure with respect to privacy and must include appropriate redactions. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.2.
2

2

Protective Order’s language does not expressly bring Ms. Ahmed’s and Defendant’s income
tax return information within its sweep. While the Receiver acknowledges that he must keep
those documents confidential pursuant to the Appointment Order, the Court concludes that
the Standing Protective Order currently does not adequately incorporate the requirements
of 26 U.S.C. § 6103. Therefore, in addition to the protections detailed in the Standing
Protective Order, the Court orders the Standing Protective Order be amended to include the
following:
(1) The Receiver may not disclose Ms. Ahmed’s and Defendant’s income tax returns,
or “tax information” as that term is defined in 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2), which the
Receiver has obtained from Ms. Ahmed or Defendant or those acting on the behalf
of either party, to anyone who is not necessary to aid the Receiver in effectuating
his obligations under the Appointment Order and who is not employed or retained
by the Receiver for that purpose unless he obtains the Count’s prior permission.
(2) If the SEC seeks any portion of these confidential tax return documents, it must
obtain leave of the Court by motion detailing its purposes and justifications for
such disclosure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 2nd day of March 2022.

3