S.D.N.Y.: Motion to suppress in forfeiture action denied where same records were procured through civil discovery without objection

A twelfth-hour (later than an eleventh-hour) motion to suppress records was filed on the eve of a forfeiture trial within the forfeiture action that was filed nearly four years earlier complicated by separate civil suits involving the same records. Waiting all this time and never objecting to any of the civil discovery was a waiver. In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128666 (S.D. N.Y. September 9, 2013):

Alavi asks the Court to go back in time to a counter-factual world and rule that the criminal investigation and civil forfeiture action were one and the same, that the documents at issue were not separately produced (which they were) in the civil litigation, and that they have not been used without objection for years (they have been). In this counter-factual world, according to Alavi, the material seized by the FBI for the criminal investigation and later voluntarily reproduced by Alavi in the forfeiture and related actions brought by private judgment creditors (“Judgment Creditors”) must be suppressed. The Court declines the invitation to enter into a counter-factual world. It chooses instead to remain in this world — a world in which this civil litigation has proceeded for almost five years and which is ripe for final resolution. The motion to suppress is denied.

. . .

After careful consideration of Alavi’s arguments in response, the Court finds that the separate and preexisting civil discovery retention and production requirements obviate the need for any Fourth Amendment analysis. Key to this finding are (1) the breadth of the Post-Complaint Protective Order, (2) the preservation obligations imposed by the original forfeiture complaint, and (3) the fact that the documents at issue were re-produced in 2012 without objection as to their relevance or provenance.

As to the first two points — the Protective Order and preservation obligations — as of the filing of the Government’s in rem forfeiture action on December 17, 2008 (if not sooner), Alavi had common law obligations to preserve all of its relevant business records for production. See Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[The] obligation to preserve evidence arises when the party has notice that the evidence is relevant to litigation-most commonly when suit has already been filed, providing the party responsible for the destruction with express notice, but also on occasion in other circumstances, as for example when a party should have known that the evidence may be relevant to future litigation.”); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 216 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (“Zubulake IV”); see also Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated litigation.”) (citing Kronisch, 150 F.3d at 126).

Alavi thus had a duty to preserve its books and records at least as of December 17, 2008, when the initial forfeiture complaint against Assa and its interest in 650 Fifth Ave. Co. was filed.

But Alavi’s responsibility went even further; the Protective Order of December 17, 2008, also required it to permit the Government to inspect the entirety books and records of Fifth Ave. Co. in connection with the forfeiture litigation. (Protective Order ¶¶ 4, 6, ECF No. 2.) Counsel for Alavi and 650 Fifth Ave. acknowledged this obligation and complied by negotiating with the Government the return and re-production of the nonprivileged documents seized in the criminal search. (See Ruzumna Jan. 2009 Letter.)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.