Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EXHIBIT B
(FILED UNDER SEAL)
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSDonDocket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 2 ofPage
17
1 of 16
Case No.1:I7-CV-6OMy6-UNGARO/O'SULLIVAN
ALEKSEJ G UBAREV,XBT HO LDING
S.A.,and W EBZILLA,INC.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
Defendants.
/
SEALED O RDERI
THIS MATTER cam e before the Courton Non-party David J.Kramer's Sealed
ConfidentialratherthanAttorneys'Eyes OnIy.'').
1The undersigned has perm itted the parties to file undersealIegalm em oranda
in connectionwith the instantmotion forpfotective order.See Order(DE# 128,
1/26/18).
,Order(DE# 136,2/20/18). LocalRule 5.4(a)statesthatl dlulnless otherwise
provided by Iaw ,Coud rule,orCoud order,proceedings in the United States District
Courtare publicand Courtfilings are mattersofpublicrecord.''S.D.Fla.L.R.5.4(a).
Forthe reasons discussed in this Order,the undersigned finds good cause forthis
Orderand the filings related to this Orderto rem ain undersealatthis tim e.
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSDonDocket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 3 ofPage
17
2 of 16
tothe Plaintiffs'Opposi
tionto HisMotionforProtective Order(DE# 132,2/6/18)
(hereinafter1tRepIy'').
O n February 20,2018,the undersigned granted the defendants Ieave to respond
to the instantm otion and perm itted the plaintiffs and M r.Kram erto file replies to the
1. Good Cause
protection.'').
M r.Kram erseeks a protective orderm aintaining the ''Confidential''designation of
his deposition testim ony.M r.Kram erargues thatthe public dissem ination ofhis
deposi
tiontestimony''wouldjeopardize his and hisfamily'spersonalsafety,aswellas
the integrity ofongoing (Congressional)investigations ....'Motion at1,The plaintiffs
seek to rem ove the t'Confidential''designation in orderto use M r.Kram er's deposition
3
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSDonDocket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 5 ofPage
17
4 of 16
A. Safety
testim ony was publicly disclosed d'persons orentities nam ed in the Dossier...orthose
was the targetoftwo hacking attem pts in the fallof2016 and in the sum m erof2017.
Id.at 14.
The plaintiffs m aintain thatM r.Kram er's safety concerns are unfounded.The
ithas already been w idely repoded ' thatM r.Kram ertestified to Congress
thathe knew the identities ofChristopherSteele's Russian sources and,
in any event,Plaintiffs have stated thatthey are w illing to keep
confidentialthe podions ofthe transcriptreferring to M r.Kramer's
knowledge ofthe identities ofthese sources as wellas those podions of
testim ony referencing the sim ilarities between M r.Kram er's deposition
testim ony and questions answered before Congress.
2017 repoding thatM r.Kram erknew the nam es ofthe Russian sources forthe Dossier.
Id.at5-6.
consistentwith som eone who believed thata connection w ith the Dossierwould puthim
outlets abouthis having received the Dossierfrom M r.Steele and his providing the
5
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSDonDocket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 7 ofPage
17
6 of 16
Specifically,M r.Kram eris concerned aboutreprisals from the Russian governm ent
testim ony,w hich definitively confirm s this connection.''Id.at2,5.M r.Kram erdoes not
dispute thathe has been a vocalcritic ofVladim irPutin and states thatratherthan
com bine M r.Kram er's pastcriticisms ofthe Putin regim e w ith the role he played in the
retribution.''Id.at5.
fam ily.M r.Steele,the purpoded authorofthe Dossier,has gone into hiding and a news
Kram er's m eetings with m em bers ofthe press were based on assurances of
M r.Kram erhas shown good cause in the articulated safety concerns forhimsel
fand his
fam ily ifM r.Kramer's role in providing the defendants with access to the Dossieris
m ade public.
B. CongressionalInvestigations
were 'glustvery similarto whatIhave been asked here this morning.How Icame into
possession ofThe Dossier,and m y contactwith M r.Steele orM r.Sim pson,and those
''ifthe Courtallows the Plaintiffs to share the deposition publicly and/oroutside the
contextofthiscase,itcouldthreatenConjressionalinvestigations,asitwillrevealthe
CongressionalCom m ittees'knowledge regarding the inform ation provided by M r.
Kramerto the Com m ittees.''Id.at16-17.
The plaintiffs note thatM r.Kramerhas notfiled any purported w ritten agreement
with Congress'
,M r.Kram er's depositions contains few details abouthis Congressional
testimonyinwhichMr.KramerdiscussespiisCongressionaltestimony.''Responseat
11.M r.Kram erresponds thathis deposition testim ony is ''very sim ilar''to his testim ony
Given the plaintiffs'assurances thatthey willnotm ake public the podions ofM r.
Congressionalinvestigations is notwellfounded.
2 Balancing Test
8
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSD on
Docket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 10 of
Page
17
9 of 16
plaintiffs also wantto use M r.Kram er's deposition during the depositions ofFusion
Forthe reasons stated below ,the undersigned finds thatM r.Kram er's safety
deposition.
A. London Proceeding
9
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSD on
Docket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 11 of
Page
17
10 of 16
adeposi
tion or(2)whetheran English Courtconsiders materialIike Mr.Kramer's
'contradiction'testim ony relevantto such an issue.''Reply at9.M r.Krameralso notes
that'the Nunes M em orandum3contains a treasure trove ofm aterialthatcontradicts M r.
finds thatthe plaintiffs'adiculated need forM r.Kram er's deposition foruse in the
B. W ashington,D.C.Proceeding
The plaintiffs sim ilarly argue thatM r.Kram er's deposition testim ony would be
helpfulin com pelling the deposition ofFusion G PS.Response at13.The plaintiffs state
deposed ldon confidentiality grounds.'Id.Atthe same tim e,the plaintiffs note that
Fusion G PS played a ''role in encouraging M r.Kramerto speakw ith the m edia ....''Id.
plaintiffs need to rely on M r.Kram er's testim ony to com pelthe deposi
tion ofFusion
Kram er's deposition testim ony rem ains confidentialw hile allowing the plaintiffs to cite to
Iawyers working on the underlying case in Florida'and thatitwillnotbe shared with any
ofthe padies orwith Iawyers working on related m atters.'In re Third Padv Subnoena to
4 Notably, the plaintiffs have already filed theiropposition to the m otion to quash
in the W ashington,D.C.proceeding withoutthe assistance ofM r.Kram er's deposition
testim ony.See In re Third Padv Subnoena to Fusion GPS,2018 W L 940553,at*1
(citing opposition to motionto quash).
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSD on
Docket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 13 of
Page
17
12 of 16
deposition ofM r.Steele,they state thatthey would like to use M r.Kram er's deposition
Protective O rder.Id.The plaintiffs fudherstate thatM r.Steele and Fusion GPS would
should therefore rem ove the Confidentiality designation from M r.Kramer's deposition.
Response at5.
parties agree,in advance and in writing...provided such person has executed the
and courts often order,thatdiscovery inform ation w illrem ain private.''United States v.
13
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSD on
Docket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 15 of
Page
17
14 of 16
summaryjudgment.Response at14.
The defendants accuse the plaintiffs ofim properl
y including M r.Kram er's
m otion.
Privilege''(DE# 115,1/18/18)('
tplaintiffs'Motion forPadialJudgmenton the
Pleadings'').The undersigned'sreview ofthe plaintiffs'motion and replyfound one
14
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSD on
Docket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 16 of
Page
17
15 of 16
Kramer's deposi
tion testim ony.
CO NC LUSION
Forthe reasons stated herein,itis
5The plaintiffs claim they did notneed to cite to M r.Kram er's deposition
transcriptin theirreply in suppod ofthe motionforjudgmenton the pleadings because
's
the facts thatneeded to be in frontofthe Courtwere already in frontofthe Court.''
Plaintiff's Reply at2-3.This argumentis notwelltaken.The undersigned notes thatthe
plaintiffs filed the entire 130-page deposition ofM r.Kram erin connection with the
plaintiff'smotionforjudgmentonthe pleadings.Ifthe information in M r.Kramer's
deposition was necessary to suppod the plaintiffs'argum ents,itwould be unreasonable
forthe plainti
ffs to expectthe Courtto com b through aIIthose pages to find supportfor
the plaintiffs'motion forjudgmentonthe pleadings.
15
Case
Case0:17-cv-60426-UU
0:17-cv-60426-UU Document
Document144
411-3
*SEALED*
Entered on
Entered
FLSD on
Docket
FLSD01/11/2019
Docket 02/23/2018
Page 17 of
Page
17
16 of 16
DONEANDORDERED,i
nChambers,atMiami,FIri
dathi
s VZ dayof
February,2018. '
. 6
16