United States District Court, D. Columbia.
United States of America, Plaintiff: Daniel Hocker Claman,
Della Grace Sentilles, LEAD ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, DC USA; Hector G. Bladuell, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Teresa Carol Turner-Jones, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Criminal Division, Washington, DC USA.
Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Company Ltd Guernsey
Branch, account number XX1128, in the name of Pavlo
Lazarenko, last valued at aproximately at $2 million United
States dollars, Defendant: Bryant Everett Gardner, LEAD
ATTORNEY, WINSTON & STRAWN LLP, Washington, DC USA; Doron
Weinberg, Weinberg & Wilder, San Francisco, CA USA.
Alexander Lazarenko, Claimant: Doron Weinberg, Weinberg &
Wilder, San Francisco, CA USA; Nina Wilder, San Francisco, CA
Pavel Lazarenko, Claimant: Ian Michael Comisky, Matthew David
Lee, LEAD ATTORNEYS, BLANK ROME LLP, Philadelphia, PA USA;
Dan Rhynhart, Jed M. Silversmith, PRO HAC VICE, BLANK ROME,
LLP, Philadelphia, PA USA; David Benjamin Smith, SMITH &
ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria, VA USA; Doron Weinberg, Weinberg
& Wilder, San Francisco, CA USA; Nina Wilder, San Francisco,
Alexei Ditiatkovsky, Claimant: Nancy Hollander, FREEDMAN BOYD
HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD, P.A., Albuquerque, N.M. USA;
Nina J. Ginsberg, DIMURO GINSBERG, PC, Alexandria, VA USA;
Vincent J. Ward, PRO HAC VICE, FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER
GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD, P.A., Albuquerque, N.M. USA.
Eurofed Bank Limited, Claimant: Jason A Levine, LEAD
ATTORNEY, VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Washington, DC USA; Paul
Michael Thompson, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, MCDERMOTT WILL
& EMERY LLP, Washington, DC USA; Gordon A. Greenberg,
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, Los Angeles, CA USA; Matthew J.
Jacobs, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Palo Alto, CA USA; Terry W.
Ahearn, MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP, Menlo Park, CA USA.
Lecia Lazarenko, Ekaterina Lazarenko, Claimants: Doron
Weinberg, LEAD ATTORNEY, Weinberg & Wilder, San Francisco, CA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Claimant Pavel Lazarenko's
Motion For Leave to File Under Seal [Dkt. 513]. On September
29, 2015, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
[Dkt. 462] granting another motion for leave to file under
seal in this case subject to, inter alia, the following three
the Court grants a motion for leave to file under seal any
documents of any nature, including motions and briefs, that
contain confidential material, the party filing the sealed
document shall also file on the public record a copy of the
document in which the confidential material is redacted
within five business days of the filing of the sealed
Redactions to public copies of documents shall be made
solely to the extent necessary to preserve the
confidentiality of the relevant information and in
accordance with the principles set forth in this Memorandum
Opinion and Order.
Alternatively, if--and only if--the redactions are so
extensive as to render a particular document useless to the
reader, the party shall file on the public record a notice
of the filing of the document under seal in its entirety.
Court set those conditions with respect to the motion then
under consideration because sealed court proceedings are
inconsistent with " this country's strong tradition
of access to judicial proceedings," United States v.
Hubbard, 650 F.2d 293, 317 n. 89, 208 U.S.App.D.C. 399
(D.C. Cir. 1980). The Court explained that, as a general
rule, the courts are not intended to be, nor should they be,
secretive places for the resolution of secret disputes. See,
e.g., Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (" It is
clear that the courts of this country recognize a general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents,
including judicial records and documents." ). Finally,
the Court noted that, given the policy in favor of public
access, and the ease with which confidential and potentially
confidential information may be redacted from documents
before they are filed publicly, this case can and should be
open to the public to the greatest extent possible. See Dkt.
462 at 1-2
issuing the September 29, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
the parties have complied with its conditions in ...