govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_15-cv-00675-94

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
IFTIKAR AHMED, 
 Defendant, and  
 
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I -CUBED 
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI 
AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY 
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 frie
nds 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. 
 
 
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA) 
 
April 18, 2023 
 
 
 
RULING ON MOTIONS TO HOLD OAK IN CONTEMPT OF PROTECTIVE ORDER, ISSUE 
SANCTIONS, AND GRANT EMERGENCY ACCESS TO ALL TRANSCRIPTS, FILINGS, AND 
EVIDENCE IN THE NMR CASE 
Defendant Iftikar Ahmed moves to hold  non-party Oak Management Company 
(“Oak”) in contempt of this Court’s order and for san ctions based on its use of certain 
documents in NMR e-Tailing LLC vs. Oak Inv. Partners, et al, No. 656450/2017 (NY. Sup. Ct.) 
(“NMR e -Tailing”), which Defendant alleges were used  in violation of this Court’s July 17, 
2015, Protective Order [Doc. # 62]. (Def.’s Mot. to Hold Oak in Contempt and for  Sanctions 
[Doc. # 1600].) Oak contends that Defendant misreads the Protective Order, which only bars 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2474     Filed 04/19/23     Page 1 of 6
2 
 
production of such document s by the receiving party, rather than the party with whom  the 
documents originated. (Oak’s Mem. in Opp’n to Sanctions [Doc. # 1614].) Relief Defendants 
separately move for access to all transcripts, filings, and evidence in the NMR  e-Tailing 
matter not to support the contempt motion, but on the grounds that the NMR  e-Tailing 
judgment and the documents in that case might (1) contain information relevant to the 
judgment entered in this case, and (2) impact the amount of the judgment in this case. (Relief 
Defs.’ Emergency Mot. for Access [Doc. # 1605].) Oak responds that there is no basis for Relief 
Defendants’ motion because judgment has already been entered in this case, leaving no 
grounds for seeking further discovery. (Oak Mem. in Opp’n to Access [Doc. # 1615].)  
 Background 
The Court assumes familiarity with the background of this case. Relevant to this 
motion is the Court’s May 21, 2019 Order lifting its litigation stay to permit non-party NMR 
e-Tailing, LLC to litigate against Oak  [Doc. # 1167] , which was modified  in April 2021 to 
include permission to litigate against Defendant Ahmed  as well.  [Doc. # 1871]. In NMR-
eTailing, NMR and Oak entered into a stipulation sealing certain documents that Oak 
represented were “either part of the SEC’s investigative file in ong oing matters against 
Defendant Iftikar Ahmed and therefore are prohibited from disclosure by orders of the 
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, or they contain commercially -
sensitive and proprietary information of one of the Oak Defendants.” (NMR E -Tailing, 
Stipulation and Proposed Order Regarding Order to Show Cause 009 [NYSCEF Doc. No. 253] 
(NY. Sup. Ct. June 8, 2020) [Doc. # 1602- 1] at 2 ). The New York state court ordered 38 
documents sealed on the grounds that they were “part of the SEC’s investigative file.” (Id.)  
Defendant claims those documents were produced in NMR  e-Tailing in violation of 
the Protective Order in this case . The Court’s Protective Order regarding information, 
documents, and excerpts from documents supplied in initial disclosures and as part of 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2474     Filed 04/19/23     Page 2 of 6
3 
 
discovery [Doc. # 62], stipulated to by the SEC, Shalini Ahmed, Relief Defendants, and Oak, 
states that “Counsel for any Stipulating Party may designate any document or other material 
or information produced by a Stipulating Party . . . as confidential if counsel determines, in 
good faith, that such designation is necessary to protect the interest of the client or other 
third parties.” (Id. ¶ (a).) The Protective Order further provides that “[u]nless ordered by the 
Court, or otherwise provided for herein, the confidential information disclosed will be held 
and used by the person receiving such information solely for use in connection with the 
action in which this Order issued,” which is the captioned action. (Id. ¶ (b).) Defendant claims 
this Protective Order has been violated by Oak. 
Separately, Relief Defendants claim that because the “transaction in the NMR Case is 
the exact transaction in this SEC case” and “[m]aterials produced in this instant case have 
been used in the NMR case,” the Relief Defendants “have every right to analyze any and all 
transcripts, filings, and evidence in the NMR case.” (Relief Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) Specifically, Relief 
Defendants assert that “this Court made a ruling in this matter on information which 
potentially could have been incomplete, and there yet may exist evidence that is favorable to 
the Defendant and the Relief Defendants that could impact the judgment in this case, such as 
a reduction or set aside,” and they seek to access the NMR e-Tailing documents to “bring any 
relevant facts to the Court’s attention.” (Id.) Although the Relief Defendants do not join in the 
motion for contempt, they express their agreement with the view that Oak violated the 
Protective Order through its use of documents in the NMR e-Tailing matter that were part of 
the SEC’s investigative file.  
 Discussion  
A. Motion to Hold Oak in Contempt 
“A court's inherent power to hold a party in civil contempt may be exercised only 
when (1) the order the party allegedly failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2474     Filed 04/19/23     Page 3 of 6
4 
 
the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the party has not diligently 
attempted in a reasonable manner to comply.” New York State Nat. Org. for Women v. Terry, 
886 F.2d 1339, 1351 (2d Cir. 1989). Defendant Ahmed claims that Oak violated this Court’s 
Protective Order by producing information in NMR E-Tailing, which the New York state court 
sealed based on Oak’s representation that the documents were “part of the SEC’s 
investigative file.” (Def.’s Mot. at 1). Oak represents that the only documents it has disclosed 
in NMR E -Tailing are ones that originated with it as the producing party.  (Oak’s Mem. in 
Opp’n [Doc. # 1614] at 2); see also Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., 92 F.R.D. 
67, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (a protective order that prohibited disclosure by the “receiving party” 
did not prohibit disclosure by the person “that originally controlled the evidence.”)   
The SEC represents  that it has “no reason to believe that Oak would have any 
documents from the SEC’s investigative file in this matter other than the documents that Oak 
provided to the SEC,” and that the document Defendant identified as an example of an 
improperly produced document—OAK -RD-00071163— was a document produced by Oak 
to the SEC. (SEC’s Response to Order 2378 [Doc. # 2392].)  
In the absence of  any evidence that any document received by Oak which was  
designated confidential was then produced in violation of the “unambiguous” language of the 
Protection Order, New York State Nat. Org. for Women, 886 F.2d at 1351, Defendant’s motion 
to hold Oak in contempt and for sanctions is denied.  
B. Emergency Motion for Access to All Transcripts, Filings, and Evidence 
Relief Defendants move for access to all transcripts, filings, and e vidence in NMR e-
Tailing both because NMR e-Tailing “impacts the judgment in this proceeding.”1 and because 
 
1 The Court has found no violation of the Protective Order, mooting Relief Defendants’ 
arguments that they have any right to the documents on the basis of such a violation.   
 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2474     Filed 04/19/23     Page 4 of 6
5 
 
Oak’s alleged violation of the protective order by using documents from this case while also 
sealing those documents has deprived them of their “right to view any information – 
including those produced under protective order – that pertains to the transactions in this 
case.” (Relief Defs.’ Mot. for Access at 4. ) Oak asserts that Reli ef Defendants do not have a 
right to the materials without a subpoena, 2 (Oak’s Opp’n to Mot. for Access at 2-3), and that 
the possibility any information sought by Relief Defendants could impact the judgment in 
this case is an improper “fishing expedition.” The SEC opposes Relief Defendants’ motion as 
well, arguing that Relief Defendants would have no avenue to make use of the documents, 
since discovery is closed, the judgment has already been appealed, and a motion under Rule 
60(b) based on new evidence would be untimely. (SEC’s Opp’n to Relief Defs.’ Mot. for Access 
[Doc. # 1620] at 1.)3  
As Oak observes, Relief Defendants’ motion is procedurally improper. This Court has 
previously reminded Defendant and Relief Defendants  that discovery of non-parties “must 
be conducted by subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45,” Lehman v. Kornblau, 206 F.R.D. 345, 
346 (E.D.N.Y. 2001), and only after the filing of subpoenas and noncompliance may a party 
move to compel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a); (Order Denying Def.’s Mots to Compel Oak to 
 
2 Both Oak and the SEC  argue that Relief Defendants fail to  “cite to any precedent that 
demonstrates that a court can simply grant access to such information by order,” (Oak’s 
Opp’n to Relief Defs.’ Mot at 3) or specifically that  this Court has jurisdiction to “order the 
state court presiding over the NMR case to act.” (SEC Opp’n to Relief Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) While 
federal courts do have the authority to order state court records to be unsealed if the party 
seeks to use them in a federal lawsuit, “such an unsealing motion must still be made at the 
appropriate stage of the litigation;” discovery here is closed, judgment entered, and the time 
for a motion for reconsideration has long since passed. See, e.g ., K.A. v. City of New York , No. 
116CV04936LTSKNF, 2022 WL 1063125, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2022). 
 
3 NMR e -Tailing also opposes the motion, asserting that when it inquired as to what the 
information was needed for, Relief Defendants could not answer why they needed the 
information and how it could be relevant to the case where summary judgment has been 
granted and there is a pending appeal. (NMR e-tailing Opp’n [Doc. # 1606].)  
 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2474     Filed 04/19/23     Page 5 of 6
6 
 
Produce Docs. [Doc. # 477); (Order [Doc. # 530]); (Order Denying Motion to Compel [Doc. # 
2268].) The Court has also held that blanket requests seeking “all documents” relating to 
various issues are “overbroad and impermissible. ” (Order Denying Motion to Compel 
Compliance with Subpoenas [Doc. # 833] at 3-4.)  
These grounds alone are sufficient to deny the Motion for access to NMR e-Tailing 
case evidence. Moreover, even if the request were procedurally proper, Relief Defendants do 
not demonstrate the relevance of the documents to any pending matter before this C ourt, 
and their assertion that the documents in the NMR case somehow impact any pending issue 
in this proceeding is unsupported. Relief Defendants’ motion is denied.  
 Conclusion 
For the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to hold  Oak in contempt of court 
and for sanctions  [Doc. # 1600] and Relief Defendants’ motion for  emergency access to 
materials in the NMR matter [Doc. # 1605] are DENIED.  
       IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 ___________/s/______________________________ 
 
 Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. 
 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 18th day of April, 2023 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2474     Filed 04/19/23     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight