govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_15-cv-00675-98

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 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA) 
 
June 30, 2023 
 
ORDER DENYING RELIEF DEFENDANT SHALINI AHMED’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO 
QUASH THE SUBPOENA 
Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed moves [Doc. # 2520] to quash a subpoena issued by 
the SEC on the evening of Thursday, June 22, 2023, commanding her presence for the show-
cause hearing to be held before this Court on July 7 , 2023. (Mot. Ex. 2 [Doc. # 2520 -2].) Ms. 
Ahmed argues the subpoena should be quashed because “it was not served properly, the 
relevant facts are in the record, the Subpoena results in an undue burden on Ms. Ahmed and 
may require the disclosure of privileged and protec ted matter, and the Subpoena does not 
provide for reasonable time for Ms. Ahmed to prepare.” (Mot. at 2.) She also argues that being 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2531     Filed 06/30/23     Page 1 of 4
called as a witness at the “eleventh hour” in a contempt proceeding, without counsel, would 
violate her due process rights and would be “irreparably prejudicial.” (Id.) Alternatively, Ms. 
Ahmed asks this Court to hold the show-cause hearing in abeyance and to allow a release of 
funds for Ms. Ahmed to retain counsel. (Id.). Ms. Ahmed also seeks the Court to sanction the 
SEC for serving her with the subpoena. (Id. at 15.) 
The SEC opposes [Doc. # 2528], noting that following Ms. Ahmed’s motion she has 
now been personally served (instead of electronically), and that it seeks relevant testimony 
at the show-cause hearing pertaining to Ms. Ahmed’s alleged misconduct. (SEC’s Resp. at 1.) 
On the matter of service, regardless of the propriety of service in the first instance 
(the SEC represents that it only sent the subpoena electronically after the process server 
made several unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Ms. Ahmed), the issue of service is 
now moot as both parties agree that the SEC has now personally served Ms. Ahmed. (Id. at 3; 
Ms. Ahmed’s Notice [Doc. # 2527].) On the issue of Ms. Ahmed being served at the alleged  
“eleventh hour,” the SEC represents that it began seeking to serve Ms. Ahmed on June 13, 
2023 (SEC’s Resp. Ex. A, Wyatt Decl. [Doc. # 2528- 1]), just four days after the Court denied 
Ms. Ahmed’s Motion for Release of Funds (during which time the hearing had been held in 
abeyance) and rescheduled the show-cause hearing for July 7, 2023. (SEC’s Resp. at 2; Order 
Denying Ms. Ahmed Release of Funds [Doc. # 2505] .) A court must quash a subpoena when 
it “fails to allow a reasonable time to comply.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(i). In the case cited 
by Ms. Ahmed (Mot. at 12), the court quashed a subpoena issued seven days before a hearing 
because “Courts within this Circuit have ruled the service of a subpoena five to nine days in 
advance of a hearing is not reasonable time to comply,” and noted that the parties had “been 
aware of the [] hearing date for two months and thus had ample time to issue the subpoenas.” 
Arch Ins. Co. v. Centerplan Constr. Co., LLC, No. 3:16-CV-01891-VLB, 2017 WL 4998645, at *1 
(D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2017). Here, by contrast, while the Order to Show Cause was issued on April 
13, 2023, the operative hearing date was set on June 9, 2023, and a process server was hired 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2531     Filed 06/30/23     Page 2 of 4
to attempt to serve Ms. Ahmed four days later. Moreover, while Ms. Ahmed was personally 
served on June 28, 2023 (9 days before the hearing), she has at least been on notice that her 
testimony was sought since her receipt of a subpoena via email on  June 22, 2023 (15 days 
before the hearing), and “courts in this circuit have found fourteen days to be presumptively 
reasonable[.]” Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. v. MTE Holdings, LLC , No. 20 MISC. 23, 2020 WL 
4700910, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020). Therefore, the Court finds Ms. Ahmed has been given 
reasonable time to comply. 
A subpoena must be quashed where it “ requires disclosure of privileged or other 
protected matter” or “subjects a person to undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A)(iii)-(iv). 
The SEC argues the subpoena does not place an undue burden on Ms. Ahmed, as she has “long 
been on notice of the subjects of the contempt hearing,” and she has the necessary resources 
to arrange for child -care to attend the contempt hearing. (SEC’s Resp. at 4.) The SEC 
maintains that the subpoena seeks “plainly relevant testimony” giv en that the show -cause 
hearing relates to Ms. Ahmed’s conduct related to her state court divorce proceedings. 
The Court does not view the subpoena as placing an undue burden on Ms. Ahmed and 
Ms. Ahmed is required to testify. The show -cause hearing pertains  to her  conduct 
surrounding the state court divorce proceedings, including whether “the Ahmeds diligently 
attempted to comply” with this  Court’s orders. (Mot. at 5 .) Testimony from Ms. Ahmed is 
clearly relevant. Ms. Ahmed’s concern about being questioned o n privileged areas can be 
addressed by safeguards  at the hearing.  Ms. Ahmed does not persuade the Court that no 
arrangements for child care can be made during the hearing.
1 
 
1 While the Court previously granted Ms. Ahmed’s request to attend the hearing remotely  
[Doc. # 2519], this was prior to the Court becoming aware of a subpoena for her testimony. 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2531     Filed 06/30/23     Page 3 of 4
The Court will not reconsider its denial of Ms. Ahmed’s request for a release of funds.2 
(SEC’s Resp. at 4.) The show-cause hearing on July 7, 2023 will proceed. Ms. Ahmed has failed 
to demonstrate any sanctionable conduct by the SEC. 
I. Conclusion 
For the reasons set forth above, Relief Defendant Shalini Ahmed’s Emergency Motion 
to Quash the Subpoena is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 _______________/s/____________________________ 
 
 Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J. 
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 30th day of June, 2023 
 
 
2 Ms. Ahmed notes that the Court’s previous refusal to release funds did not contemplate Ms. 
Ahmed would be called as a witness. (Mot. at 6.) But the Court denied Ms. Ahmed’s prior 
motion for a release of funds because she “failed to show actual financial need” and the 
circumstances here do not change that determination. (Order Denying Ms. Ahmed Release of 
Funds [Doc. # 2505].) 
Case 3:15-cv-00675-VDO     Document 2531     Filed 06/30/23     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight