Page No. 1 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP 

JACQUES SEMMELMAN (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

MICHAEL J. MOSCATO (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

MICHAEL R. GRAIF (NY Bar No. 2499929) 

101 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10178 

Telephone: (212) 696-6000 

jsemmelman@curtis.com 

mmoscato@curtis.com 

mgraif@curtis.com 

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 

WILLIAM F. MURPHY, ESQ. (SBN 82482) 

J. CROSS CREASON, ESQ. (SBN 209492) 

ANNA NAGORNAIA, ESQ. (SBN 311549) 

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 397-2700 

Facsimile: (415) 397-3300 

wfm@dillinghammurphy.com

jcc@dillinghammurphy.com

an@dillinghammurphy.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

The Republic of Kazakhstan 

BOERSCH SHAPIRO LLP 

DAVID W. SHAPIRO (SBN 219265) 

MARTHA BOERSCH (SBN 126569) 

LARA KOLLIOS (SBD 235395) 

1611 Telegraph Ave., Ste. 806 

Oakland, California 94612 

Telephone: (415) 500-6640 

Dshapiro@boerschshapiro.com

Mboersch@boerschshapiro.com

Lkollios@boerschshapiro.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

Ilyas Khrapunov 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MURATBEK KETEBAEV and 

ILYAS KHRAPUNOV, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) 

REPORT 

Date: October 25, 2017 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Judge: The Honorable Lucy H. Koh 

Courtroom: 8 
Page No. 2 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff The Republic of Kazakhstan (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Ilyas Khrapunov 

(“Defendant”) hereby submit this Joint Case Management Conference Statement and Rule 26(f) 

Report pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9 and the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern 

District of California. An Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for October 25, 2017 

at 2:00 p.m. 

I. Jurisdiction and Service 

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

All named parties have been served. Defendant Khrapunov has filed a limited appearance 

through counsel. He has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the “SAC”) on various 

grounds including lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. (ECF No. 040.) He has not 

contested service. 

Defendant Muratbek Ketebaev was served on June 5, 2017 at the following address: 

Wąwozowa 6/186, 02-796 Warszawa, Poland. Defendant Ketebaev has not appeared in this action. 

II. Summary of Facts 

A. Summary of Allegations 

Plaintiff has brought a civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief and damages under 

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the “CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the Stored 

Communications Act (the “SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq. Briefly stated, Plaintiff alleges that 

the named Defendants and their co-conspirators (collectively, the “Defendants”) planned, organized, 

financed, and executed multiple hackings of computer servers owned by Google Inc. and Microsoft, 

Inc. in order to unlawfully access without authorization Gmail and Hotmail accounts used, at the 

direction of the Republic of Kazakhstan, by its officials to conduct its government business. 

Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ hackings enabled the Defendants to steal, publish, and use 

thousands of sensitive, proprietary, confidential, and privileged government emails and other 

documents (the “Stolen Materials”). 

B. Uncontested Facts 

The primary undisputed material factual issues include: 

1. Plaintiff is a sovereign nation in Central Asia. 
Page No. 3 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Defendant is a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan and currently resides in 

Switzerland. 

3. Google Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mountain View, CA. 

4. Microsoft, Inc. is a Washington corporation headquartered in Redmond, WA. 

C. Contested Facts 

i. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff objects to Defendant’s inclusion of the rhetoric in Section (ii) as unfounded and 

contrary to the purpose of this Report. Plaintiff further disputes the allegations and asserts that they 

are not relevant to this action. 

ii. Defendant’s Position 

Khrapunov denies Plaintiff’s allegations that any CFAA or SCA violations occurred and, if 

any occurred, he denies Plaintiff’s allegations that he is responsible. Rather, this is yet another 

improper attempt by the Republic of Kazakhstan to use the United States’ and other foreign judicial 

systems as a weapon against political dissidents. As the Council of Europe has declared, “ 

Kazakhstani authorities have used a regular practice of fabrication of 

criminal cases, for example the pretence of financial crimes, terrorism 

or social discord against peaceful protesters, bloggers, journalists, 

oppositionists and their associates . . . A threat to be prosecuted both in 

Kazakhstan and abroad is used even against their family members as a 

form of punishment like in the case of the Khrapunovs or in the case 

of the Tokmadis, in order to obtain false confessions against the 

opposition. 

Available at http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTMLEN.asp?fileid=24151&lang=en (last visited October 16, 2017) (emphasis added). The current 

government of Kazakhstan, formerly part of the Soviet Union, is well-recognized as a brutally repressive 

one. Human Rights Watch notes that “Kazakhstan heavily restricts freedom of assembly, speech, and 

religion, and torture remains a serious problem,” and, just last year, police there “rounded up journalists 

and human rights activists who attempted to monitor and report” on various rallies. Available at

https://www.hrw.org/europe/central-asia/kazakhstan (last visited June 14, 2017). Moreover, the 

Financial Times has reported that, “the political battles of the former Soviet are fought not in the parched 

valleys east of the Caspian Sea but in western courts . . . .” Id. Kazakhstan has employed a “strategy, 
Page No. 4 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

common in former Soviet states, of deploying commercial litigation to crush political opponents – using 

the world’s most respected courts to confer legitimacy.” Id. 

 This action is one of many actions filed by Kazakhstan that is currently pending in the United 

States against Khrapunov and his family members. See City of Almaty, Kazakhstan, et al. v. Mukhtar 

Ablyazov, et al., No. 15-cv-05345-AJN-KHP (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2015); City of Almaty v. Viktor 

Khrapunov, et al., No. 14-cv-03650-FMO-CW (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2014). This and the other suits are 

not designed to redress wrongs that allegedly occurred in the United States, but are instead designed to 

suppress information and punish political foes of the current regime. Here, Kazakhstan is attempting to 

suppress newsworthy information that political dissidents have been using since August 2014 to expose 

Kazakhstan’s pursuit of corrupt legal actions, both civil and criminal, in courts around the world, 

including in the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, New York, Los Angeles, and here. 

Kazakhstan’s suit is not only for an improper purpose, it is also legally and factually deficient, and 

Khrapunov believes it will be dismissed as a result. 

III. Legal Issues 

A. Undisputed Legal Issues 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. 

B. Disputed Legal Issues 

Plaintiff identifies the following primary legal issues: 

1. Whether Defendants violated the CFAA by intentionally accessing protected 

computers without authorization, and by obtaining the Stolen Materials from 

such protected computers; 

2. Whether Defendants violated the SCA by knowingly and intentionally accessing 

without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication 

service is provided and thereby obtaining documents from among the Stolen 

Materials that included wire or electronic communications, while such 

communications were in electronic storage in such system. 

3. Whether Defendants are liable for damages to the Plaintiff. 

4. Whether the Court should grant the injunctive relief demanded in the SAC. 
Page No. 5 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant identifies the following primary legal issues: 

1. Whether Kazakhstan has alleged facts sufficient to state a claim under the CFAA 

or SCA; 

2. Whether there is personal jurisdiction over Khrapunov; 

3. Whether the SCA applies extraterritorially; 

4. Whether the Northern District of California is the proper venue; 

5. Whether the action should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens; 

6. Whether Kazakhstan has standing to pursue this action; 

7. Whether a protected computer was involved, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 

1030(e)(2)(B); 

8. Whether Kazakhstan incurred any cognizable damages, as required by 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and (a)(5)(C); 

9. Whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution bars 

Kazakhstan’s claims in whole or in part; 

10. Whether issue or claim preclusion will apply given the similarity of claims and 

parties in City of Almaty, Kazakhstan, et al. v. Mukhtar Ablyazov, et al., No. 15-

cv-05345-AJN-KHP (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2015) 

IV. Status of Prior and Pending Motions 

The original complaint was filed on January 18, 2017 (ECF No. 1). 

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on January 20, 2017 (ECF No. 8). 

On June 30, 2017, Defendant Khrapunov filed his Motion to Dismiss the First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF No. 027.) 

On August 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed its SAC (ECF No. 033) after the Court adopted the 

Parties’ stipulation allowing for the filing of the SAC (ECF No. 028). 

On October 9, 2017, Defendant Khrapunov filed his Motion to Dismiss the SAC (the 

“Motion”), alleging that (1) the SAC fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim; (2) this Court 

lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant; (3) the SAC should be dismissed on forum non 

conveniens grounds and/or because the Northern District of California is not the proper venue; and 
Page No. 6 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(4) Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue the action. (ECF No. 040.) Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion is due on November 9, 2017. Defendant’s Reply in Support of his Motion is 

due on November 30, 2017. 

Oral argument on the Motion is scheduled for December 21, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. 

V. Amendment of Pleadings 

Neither party is requesting to add another party at this time. Discovery may reveal 

additional parties to be added. 

VI. Evidence Preservation 

The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored 

Information, and have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding reasonable and 

proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this 

action. Each party agrees to preserve all relevant e-mails and other electronically-stored data 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable local rules. Plaintiff and Defendant 

have issued litigation holds to their respective clients and have taken steps to ensure all relevant 

information will be preserved. The parties will meet and confer on the format and production of 

requested electronically stored information and data, as well as the cost of preparing such 

information or data as applicable. 

VII. Substantive Discovery Issues 

A. Initial Disclosures 

i. Plaintiff’s Position 

Plaintiff is prepared to exchange Initial Disclosures on October 18, 2017, in accordance with 

the timing set forth by this Court in its January 19, 2017 Order Setting Initial Management 

Conference and ADR Deadlines (ECF No. 005) (ordering that Initial Disclosures be exchanged one 

week prior to the Case Management Conference). Plaintiff so informed Defendant at a meet and 

confer session held October 5, 2017. Defendant has indicated that he will not serve Plaintiff with 

his Initial Disclosures on October 18, 2017. As a result, Plaintiff has not yet served Defendant with 

its Initial Disclosures, but will continue to engage with Defendant to try to reach agreement on the 

exchange of Initial Disclosures, hopefully without the Court’s intervention. 
Page No. 7 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii. Defendant’s Position 

As set forth below in Sections VII(B) and VIII(A), the Parties have proposed a stay of 

discovery pending a decision on Khrapunov’s Motion to Dismiss to preserve judicial and party 

resources. Further, Khrapunov believes personal jurisdiction is lacking here and counsel has made a 

limited appearance for the purpose of filing a motion to dismiss on that ground and others. 

Khrapunov proposes that the Parties exchange initial disclosures 7 days after the Court issues an 

order denying Khrapunov’s motion to dismiss, if such an order is issued.

B. Discovery Completed to Date 

No discovery has been taken in this action. The parties propose to defer the commencement 

of discovery until the Court has ruled on the pending motion to dismiss the SAC. 

C. Current Discovery Disputes 

There are currently no discovery disputes. 

D. Scope of Anticipated Discovery; Proposed Discovery Plan 

The parties anticipate propounding written discovery requests, including but not limited to, 

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and Requests for Admissions. The parties 

also intend to take depositions of various witnesses. 

E. Proposed Changes to Discovery Rules 

The parties believe the presumptive limits on interrogatories and depositions set forth in the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are appropriate for this case. 

F. Stipulated e-Discovery Order and e-Service 

The parties have not entered into a stipulated e-discovery order. 

The parties have agreed to accept electronic service of all discovery requests and responses, 

including productions of documents. 

The parties do not intend to use an electronic repository to exchange documents. 

G. Method of Producing ESI 

The parties do not believe that ESI will be a significant cost or burden in this matter. 
Page No. 8 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

H. Privilege Log 

The parties have agreed to exchange privilege logs. No document created after January 18, 

2017 need be logged. Additionally, the Parties agree that (regardless of date): (i) any work product, 

(ii) any internal law firm communications, (iii) any communications between law firms that 

represent the same party (even in different matters), and (iv) any communications solely between a 

party and his or its counsel need not be logged. 

I. Protective Order 

The parties agree that there is a need for a protective order relating to discovery. The parties 

agree to meet and confer in good faith over the terms of a protective order. 

VIII. Proposed Discovery and Case Management Schedule 

A. Proposed Schedule of Major Events and Deadlines 

The parties propose the schedule set forth below with respect to discovery and motion work. 

Event Deadline 

Exchange Initial Disclosures Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff is prepared 

to exchange Initial Disclosures on 

October 18, 2017. Because Defendant 

has indicated that he will not serve 

Plaintiff with his Initial Disclosures on 

October 18, 2017, Plaintiff has not yet 

served Defendant with its Initial 

Disclosures, but will continue to engage 

with Defendant to try to reach 

agreement, hopefully without the Court’s 

intervention. 

Defendant’s Position: seven days after a 

denial of the motion to dismiss. 

Written Discovery October 25, 2018 
Page No. 9 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Completion of Depositions October 25, 2018 

Exchange Expert Disclosures (if any) November 26, 2018 

Exchange Rebuttal Expert Disclosures (if 

any) 

December 21, 2018 

Completion of Expert Discovery January 25, 2019 

Dispositive Motion(s) (if any) March 8, 2019 

Oppositions to Dispositive Motion(s) (if 

any) 

April 19, 2019 

Replies in Support of Dispositive 

Motion(s) (if any) 

May 10, 2019 

Pretrial Conference TBD after any summary judgment ruling 

Trial TBD after any summary judgment ruling 

In order to avoid any premature expenditure of resources, the Parties believe that discovery 

should be stayed until Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is decided. Should the Motion to Dismiss be 

denied (in whole or in part), the Parties believe that discovery should be completed by October 25, 

2018. The parties believe that certain extenuating circumstances in this case require a discovery 

period of this length. First, Defendant Khrapunov, a resident of Switzerland, has indicated that he 

believes that he must be served with any discovery requests in accordance with the Hague Service 

Convention. Although Plaintiff reserves the right to oppose this and to seek to take discovery 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should the Court agree with Defendant 

Khrapunov, the process under the Hague Service Convention could take several months to 

complete. Additionally, a number of non-party witnesses reside abroad, and service of discovery 

demands on them will need to be effectuated through the Hague Service Convention. Finally, if 

personal jurisdiction over Defendant Khrapunov is not apparent from the allegations in the SAC and 

from Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and supporting documents (due Nov. 

9, 2017), Plaintiff requests that it be permitted jurisdictional discovery. Khrapunov opposes this 
Page No. 10 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

request because no amount of discovery will demonstrate sufficient contacts of Khrapunov to this 

forum to satisfy due process. Should the Court order this discovery and should the Court further 

order a stay of merits discovery pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, the 

commencement of merits discovery will likely be stayed into the beginning of 2018. The parties 

will make all efforts to complete discovery in a timely manner, but believe that a discovery period 

of this length is necessary. 

The parties have allocated approximately three months for expert discovery: (1) 

approximately one month after the close of fact discovery to exchange expert disclosures; (2) 

approximately one month to exchange rebuttal expert disclosures; and (3) approximately one month 

to complete expert depositions. Given the complex issues in this case and the proximity of these 

dates to the holidays, the Parties believe that this time period is reasonable and appropriate. 

Following the completion of expert discovery, the Parties suggest that any dispositive 

motions, which may include the compilation of an extensive amount of factual material, be due on 

March 8, 2019 – six weeks following the completion of expert discovery. The parties believe that a 

briefing schedule for any dispositive motions should allow six weeks for any opposition brief and an 

additional three weeks for any reply brief. 

Finally, in order to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources, the Parties suggest that 

the Pretrial Conference and trial date be set after adjudication of any dispositive motions. If no 

dispositive motions are filed, the Parties suggest a trial date beginning in May of 2019. 

IX. Related Cases 

On October 10, 2017, counsel for movants Pavel Prosyankin and John Doe filed an 

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (the “Administrative 

Motion”) (ECF No. 043), arguing that the case captioned In re Application of Ilyas Khrapunov 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for the Taking of Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, 4:17-

mc- 80107-KAW (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017) is related to the current matter. Khrapunov opposed 

this motion on October 13, 2017 (ECF No. 49), and the Court denied Prosyankin’s motion on 

October 16, 2017 (ECF No. 50). 
Page No. 11 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The parties are not aware of any other related cases or proceedings pending before another 

judge of this court, or before another court or administrative body. 

X. Relief 

Briefly stated, Plaintiff seeks a judgment identifying the Defendants as liable for the 

unlawful access, and an award of damages currently estimated at $274,000, consisting of expenses 

to investigate the hackings and to control and remediate the damage Defendants caused. Plaintiff 

also seeks an injunction enjoining Defendants from using, disclosing, disseminating, posting, 

displaying, sharing, distributing, hosting, copying, viewing, accessing, providing access to or 

making available to anyone, in any manner whatsoever, any of the Stolen Materials. Finally, 

Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court directing that certain websites displaying Stolen Materials or 

containing links to the repositories containing the Stolen Materials be disabled and/or deleted. 

XI. Settlement and ADR 

The Parties have not yet held settlement discussions, nor are settlement discussions currently 

scheduled as the Parties do not believe that any discussions will be fruitful. The parties are 

scheduled to attend an ADR Phone Conference on October 24, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. 

The Parties have complied with Northern District of California’s ADR L.R. 3-5 by filing the 

ADR Certification. 

XII. Trial Issues 

A. Jury Trial 

The parties do not request a jury trial. 

B. Expedited Trial, Binding Arbitration, or Other Reference 

The parties do not believe this case is suitable for an expedited trial, binding arbitration, or 

other references. 

C. Proposed Trial Plan 

At this time, the Parties do not request bifurcation or phasing of trial. More details about 

Plaintiff’s trial plan will be provided after discovery has been conducted. 

D. Length of Trial 

The parties estimate that the number of trial days required is 5-10 court days. 
Page No. 12 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

E. Scheduling a Trial Date 

Both parties agree that trial setting should be reserved until after any summary judgment 

motions are decided. 

XIII. Narrowing of Issues 

The parties have not stipulated to the narrowing of any issues. 

XIV. Other Issues 

A. Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes 

The Parties do not consent to Magistrate Judge for all purposes. 

B. Disclosure of Non-Party Interested Entities or Person 

i. Plaintiff’s Position 

In accordance with Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 3-15, Plaintiff, as a 

governmental entity, is not required to file a “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons.” 

Plaintiff also objects to Defendant’s inclusion of the rhetoric in Section (ii) as unfounded and 

contrary to the purpose of this Report. Plaintiff further disputes the allegations and asserts that they 

are not relevant to whether Plaintiff must file a Certification of Interested Entities or Persons. 

ii. Defendant’s Position 

Khrapunov does not agree that Kazakhstan is exempted from this requirement as a foreign 

sovereign. Moreover, it is Khrapunov’s position that extenuating circumstances here make it 

appropriate for Kazakhstan to file a Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons, because witnesses 

on behalf of Kazakhstan have benefitted from testifying against political dissidents in other 

jurisdictions. For example, Nicholas Bourg is the sole witness to Khrapunov’s alleged comment 

that he “orchestrated the hackings of the email accounts of numerous employees of the Republic of 

Kazakhstan.” SAC ¶ 88. Bourg admitted in a deposition recently taken in England that he has an 

agreement with the government of Kazakhstan and BTA Bank to “cooperate” against the 

Khrapunovs, and that as part of the agreement, BTA Bank has paid Bourg over €562,000 (roughly 

$663,019) as reimbursement for “expenses” related to his assistance. If there are other such 

financial beneficiaries here, they should be disclosed without delay. 
Page No. 13 - Case No. 5:17-cv-00246 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. Professional Conduct 

All attorneys of record have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for the 

Northern District of California. 

Dated: October 18, 2017 CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, 

 COLT & MOSLE LLP 

JACQUES SEMMELMAN 

MICHAEL J. MOSCATO 

MICHAEL R. GRAIF 

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP 

WILLIAM F. MURPHY 

J. CROSS CREASON 

ANNA NAGORNAIA 

By ______________________________ 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff the Republic 

 of Kazakhstan 

Dated: October 18, 2017 BOERSCH SHAPIRO LLP 

 DAVID W. SHAPIRO 

 MARTHA BOERSCH 

 LARA KOLLIOS 

By ______________________________ 

 Attorneys for Defendant Ilyas Khrapunov 

/s/ William F. Murphy 

/s/ Martha Boersch