Securities & Exchange Commission v. Rajaratnam
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20179, 622 F3d 159 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 does not absolutely prohibit the disclosure of lawfully obtained wiretapped conversations by criminal defendants to a civil enforcement authority in a parallel civil action, a district court must balance the civil discovery right of access against the privacy interests at stake, particularly considering the legality of the wiretaps and the relevancy of the conversations.
Facts:
- Raj Rajaratnam founded Galleon Management, LP, and served as its managing general partner.
- Danielle Chiesi was a hedge fund manager and investment consultant at New Castle Funds LLC.
- Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi allegedly engaged in widespread and repeated insider trading at several hedge funds, generating over $52 million in illegal profits.
- The alleged insider trading scheme involved tips from insiders concerning market-moving events such as quarterly earnings announcements, takeovers, and material contracts.
- A criminal investigation into these allegations included court-ordered wiretapping of communications between the defendants and others, spanning sixteen months and involving 18,150 communications intercepted from ten separate telephones.
- As part of criminal discovery, the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) provided copies of these wiretapped communications, along with the orders authorizing the wiretaps and the government’s applications for those orders, to Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 16, 2009, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed criminal complaints charging Raj Rajaratnam, Danielle Chiesi, and other defendants with securities fraud and conspiracy.
- On the same day, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil complaint against Raj Rajaratnam, Danielle Chiesi, and others, charging them with insider trading and conspiracy based on the same conduct; this civil action was assigned to Judge Jed S. Rakoff.
- Two months later, Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi were indicted for insider trading and conspiracy, and their criminal case was assigned to Judge Richard Holwell.
- The USAO, though inadvertently providing a small group of recordings, did not share the full wiretap materials directly with the SEC for use in the civil case.
- The SEC sought access to the wiretap recordings by demanding them from Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi in discovery in the civil case before Judge Rakoff.
- Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi opposed the SEC's demand, arguing the materials were not relevant and that disclosure was prohibited by Title III.
- The SEC moved to compel disclosure.
- The district court (Judge Rakoff) ordered Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi to produce the wiretapped conversations to the SEC and to any other party to the civil action that demanded them, entering a protective order prohibiting disclosure to any non-party until a court of competent jurisdiction had ruled on any suppression motion.
- Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi appealed the district court's order to the Second Circuit, and the Second Circuit granted a stay pending appeal.
- Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi had previously moved in the district court for a stay pending appeal and a certification for immediate appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), but the district court denied both motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 absolutely prohibit a district court from ordering criminal defendants, who have lawfully received wiretapped conversations in parallel criminal proceedings, to disclose those conversations to a civil enforcement agency in a related civil enforcement action, or must the court balance the civil discovery right of access against the privacy interests at stake, considering the legality of the wiretaps and the relevancy of the conversations?
Opinions:
Majority - Gerard E. Lynch
No, Title III does not absolutely prohibit the disclosure of wiretapped conversations by criminal defendants in a civil enforcement proceeding to a civil enforcement agency where the defendants have lawfully received the wiretaps; however, a district court addressing a discovery demand for such materials must balance the civil discovery right of access against the privacy interests at stake. The court rejected the argument that Title III implicitly forbids all disclosures it does not explicitly permit, citing In re Newsday, Inc., which established that Title III does not prohibit public access by other means on other occasions. While Title III does not authorize the USAO to disclose wiretap contents to the SEC for a civil enforcement purpose, this does not mean it prohibits disclosure from criminal defendants who have lawfully received the materials under 18 U.S.C. § 2517(2). Preventing such disclosure would create an unfair informational imbalance in civil discovery, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) establishes a presumptive right to discovery of relevant, non-privileged information. The SEC’s interest in avoiding this prejudice is significant, especially given the likelihood that defendants’ attorneys would use the information in civil trial preparation, and depositions might be unproductive due to Fifth Amendment invocations. However, this right of access is not absolute and must be balanced against the strong privacy interests protected by Title III. The district court clearly exceeded its discretion by ordering disclosure without first awaiting a ruling on the legality of the wiretaps, which were subject to pending suppression motions in related criminal cases. If the wiretaps are found unlawful, further dissemination would compound the injury; if lawful, privacy concerns would be reduced. The district court also erred by ordering wholesale disclosure of thousands of conversations involving hundreds of parties without limiting the order to relevant conversations, infringing privacy without legitimate countervailing interest. The court noted that good faith reliance on a court order provides a complete defense against civil or criminal actions under Title III, so appellants would not face sanctions for compliance.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the parameters for discovery of wiretap evidence in parallel civil and criminal proceedings. It establishes that courts cannot order a blanket disclosure of lawfully obtained wiretap materials from criminal defendants to civil enforcement agencies without a careful, individualized balancing of interests. The ruling emphasizes the continuing importance of Title III's privacy protections, even when information has been lawfully acquired and distributed within the legal system. Future courts will need to prioritize rulings on wiretap legality and strictly scrutinize the relevancy of requested conversations before compelling disclosure, thereby influencing discovery practices in complex multi-forum litigation involving sensitive information.
