Democratic National Committee v. The Russian Federation et al

Filing 147

STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Democratic National Committee. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Declaration of Joseph M. Sellers, #2 Exhibit B - Declaration of Julia Horwitz, #3 Exhibit C - Affidavit of Due Diligence for Defendant Kushner, #4 Exhibit D - Affidavit of Due Diligence for Defendant Aras Agalarov)(Sellers, Joseph)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
) Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-03501-JGK
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DECLARATION OF JULIA A. HORWITZ
I, Julia Horwitz, declare as follows:
1.

I am an attorney at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC. I am counsel for Plaintiff in the

above-referenced matter. I submit this declaration in connection with Plaintiff’s Status Report
Regarding Service of Process (“Status Report”). I have personal knowledge of all facts stated in
this declaration, and if called to testify, I could and would testify competently thereto.
2.

On May 2, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed service waivers to addresses that had been

publicly linked to the Non-Waiving Defendants1, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d).
Plaintiff’s counsel informed these Defendants that they had thirty days to return the waivers. When
the Non-Waiving Defendants missed the deadline to return their forms, Plaintiff’s counsel began
efforts to serve them.

“Non-Waiving Defendants” refers to Defendants Richard W. Gates, III (“Gates”), Paul
J. Manafort, Jr. (“Manafort”), Jared C. Kushner (“Kushner”), and Emin Araz Agalarov (“Emin
Agalarov”).
1

3.

With respect to Manafort, on July 17, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed a summons, the

Complaint, Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions, and the Individual Practices of Judge John
G. Koeltl (the “service packet”) to the attorneys of record listed on the docket sheet in Manafort’s
criminal case.
4.

On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed the service packet to those same attorneys at

the address listed on the docket sheet, and on July 19, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed the service
packet to Manafort at the Alexandria Detention Center.
5.

Regarding Emin Agalarov, on July 19, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel personally spoke with the

process server who handed a service packet to Ms. Inga Madzule at the Anderson Avenue address.
The process server confirmed for Plaintiff’s counsel the account he provided in his affidavit. He
provided additional detail confirming his account of service, including the facts that: (a) he twice
said Emin Agalarov’s full name, so he is confident that Ms. Madzule did not think the package
was intended for his sister; and (b) he is confident that Ms. Madzule spoke English because she
answered his open-ended questions in full sentences such as: “He’s traveling,” “He’s in Russia
right now,” and “I don’t know when he’s coming back.”
6.

As a courtesy to Emin Agalarov, Plaintiff’s counsel transmitted copies of the service packet

to Scott Balber, Esq., an attorney for Emin Agalarov, by email. Plaintiff’s counsel also mailed a
copy of the service packet to Mr. Balber via first class mail, postage prepaid, on July 19, 2018.
7.

Regarding Defendants The Russian Federation (“Russia”); the General Staff of the Armed

Forces of the Russian Federation (“GRU”); the GRU operative using the pseudonym “Guccifer
2.0” (“GRU Operative #1”), on May 23, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel began the process of submitting
the required documents to the Court for transmission to the Secretary of State in Washington, D.C.,

2

immediately after reading the Court’s Order (ECF No. 75). On July 10, 2018, the State Department
notified Plaintiff that the service request was received and was being processed.
8.

Regarding Defendant Aras Iskenerovich Agalarov (“Aras Agalarov”), Plaintiff’s counsel

consulted Florida real estate reports, which suggested that Aras Agalarov purchased a luxury
condominium in Florida. Plaintiff’s counsel therefore mailed Aras Agalarov a service waiver at
the Florida address on May 2, 2018. When Plaintiff’s counsel did not receive a response to the
waiver by the deadline, Plaintiff’s counsel hired a process server to attempt personal service at the
Florida address.
9.

Regarding Defendant WikiLeaks, on April 25, 2018, per the instructions provided on

WikiLeaks’

website,

Plaintiff’s

counsel

attempted

to

send

an

email

to

[e-mail], asking for the postal address and contact details where legal
documents could be sent. Later that day, counsel received a notification that the outgoing email
had been rejected six times over the course of an hour. On April 29, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel
received another notification that the email had been rejected 30 times over the course of 92 hours.
On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel made another attempt to send an email to that same address.
An hour later, counsel received another notification that the email had not been delivered, despite
six attempts to deliver over a period of one hour. On July 14, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel received
another notification that the email had been rejected 30 times over the course of 92 hours.
10.

Plaintiff’s counsel also made diligent attempts to contact counsel who represented

WikiLeaks in other matters. Plaintiff’s counsel searched PACER and Westlaw for any case in
which WikiLeaks was represented by counsel, and found only one case: a suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland. In that case, WikiLeaks, one of the plaintiffs, was represented
by two attorneys from Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. On July 19, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel emailed

3

those attorneys to ask if they were authorized to accept service on WikiLeaks’s behalf, or if they
knew of any other person who might be able to accept service. One of the two attorneys replied
within 10 minutes, stating: “We are not authorized and have had no contact with this entity for
several years. I do not have any idea about who may be authorized to accept service for Wikileaks.”
11.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s counsel searched news reports and Wikipedia, and identified three

individuals who may have represented WikiLeaks. Of these, one is deceased, one lives in Spain
and does not have contact information that Plaintiff’s counsel can locate, and the third lives in
London and appears to represent Defendant Julian Assange (“Assange”), but is not clearly linked
by reliable sources to WikiLeaks. Plaintiff intends to file a motion for leave to serve WikiLeaks
by alternative means shortly.
12.

Regarding Defendant Assange, in late April 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted an

international process server to inquire about how to serve Assange, given that he currently resides
in an Ecuadoran embassy in London, U.K. The process server indicated that serving Assange
would present a unique set of challenges and that further investigation would be necessary. In
May 2018, while Plaintiff’s counsel continued to evaluate the appropriate means to effect service
on Assange, credible news reports began to circulate that Assange might be evicted from the
Ecuadoran embassy and extradited to the United States. In light of these reports, Plaintiff’s counsel
refrained from attempting service on Assange in London while there was still the possibility that
he would be brought to the United States, where he could be served domestically. However, when
there were no new reports about the possibility of Assange’s eviction from the Ecuadoran embassy
or extradition to the United States by early July, Plaintiff’s counsel concluded that Mr. Assange
was likely to remain at the embassy for the near future, and should be served there. Plaintiff’s

4

counsel then commenced attempting service of process on Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy.
That attempt to effectuate service is currently underway.
13.

Regarding Defendant Joseph Mifsud (“Mifsud”), Plaintiff’s counsel has been unable to

locate any known current addresses or contact information for him, despite working with a private
investigator. Plaintiff’s counsel is continuing to monitor news sources for any indicia of Mifsud’s
whereabouts. If and when Plaintiff’s counsel sees such indicia, it will file a motion to serve Mifsud
by appropriate means.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 19th day of July 2018 in Washington, D.C.

_____________________
Julia Horwitz

5