1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No. 03-C-3904

v. )

) Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman

KEVIN TRUDEAU )

)

Defendant )

)

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM SERVED ON SUNEIL SANT

Subpoena Respondent Suneil Sant (“Sant”), by and through his attorneys and pursuant to 

Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 26.2, hereby moves this Court for entry of an order 

providing leave for Sant’s Motion to Quash the portion of the February 25, 2013 subpoena issued 

by the Federal Trade Commission (“Subpoena Duces Tecum”) requiring Sant to produce certain 

documents. In support of this motion, Sant states as follows:

1. On February 25, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued the 

Subpoena Duces Tecum to Sant seeking production of certain documents and for Sant to appear 

and testify at a deposition in connection with the FTC’s post-judgment actions in this case. A 

copy of the Subpoena Duces Tecum is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Via a rider to the Subpoena 

titled “Specifications – Request to Produce Documents,” the FTC sought the production of the 

following documents:

1. To the extent not already produced to the FTC, provide statements 

from all banks or other financial institutions of any sort, for any account held by 

or in the name of any Trudeau-Affiliated Entity, from January 1, 2012 through the 

date of full and complete compliance with this subpoena.

2. To the extent not already produced to the FTC, Provide Financial 

Statements for all Trudeau-Affiliated Entities from January 1, 2010 through the 

date of full and complete compliance with this subpoena.
2

3. All Documents created on or after January 1, 2009 reflecting 

communications of any sort with Kevin Trudeau or Nataliya Babenko in any way 

Related to the control, management, or operations of any Trudeau-Affiliated 

Entity, including, without limitations, emails to or from a personal account 

(whether stored on a personal computer, other device, or through a “cloud” 

service), and text messages to or from any personal phone or other device.

4. All Documents reflecting communications of any sort in any way 

Related to Golden Lion Mint, Scotia Bank, or gold bars You acquired from, 

traded to, swapped with, or delivered to Golden Lion Mint on or about October 

18, 2011, including, without limitation, emails to or from a personal account 

(whether stored on a personal computer, other device, or through a “cloud” 

service), and text messages to or from any personal phone or other device.

5. From January 1, 2009 through the date of full and complete 

compliance with this subpoena, all Documents reflecting communications of any 

sort with Kevin Trudeau or Natalya Babenko Related to the Transfer of any Asset 

worth more than $5,000, including, without limitation, emails to or from a 

personal account (whether stored on a personal computer, other device, or through 

a “cloud” service), and text messages to or from any personal phone or other 

device.

6. All Employment Agreements with Kevin Trudeau, Nataliya 

Babenko, or any Trudeau-Affiliated Entity.

2. On March 11, 2013, Patrick E. Deady, counsel for Sant, pursuant to Rule 

45(c)(2)(B) served upon counsel for the FTC written objections to the Subpoena Duces Tecum.

3. Counsel for Sant and the FTC conducted a good faith discussion pursuant to 

Local Rule 37.1 on March 13, 2013, in an effort to resolve the parties’ differences regarding the 

Subpoeana. The parties were unable to resolve their differences.

4. Initially, Sant asserts that the act of production of any such documents may 

involve testimonial self-incrimination, protected by the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. v. Doe, 465 

U.S. 605, 613 (1984). According to Doe, the act of producing documents is protected by the 

Fifth Amendment, as compelled production of documents can be considered testimonial in 

nature, thereby requiring the subpoena respondent to provide information in violation of his 

rights under the Fifth Amendment. 
3

5. As the Court is surely aware, Trudeau is presently being prosecuted for criminal 

contempt in connection with this case before Judge Guzman. In the current contempt proceeding

before this Court, the FTC is proceeding to incarcerate Trudeau as a part of a civil contempt, but 

the facts alleged could easily serve as a basis for a rule to show cause why Trudeau should not be 

held in criminal contempt, under 18 U.S.C. §402.

6. To the extent the FTC or the Court might find the conduct of Sant to be aiding or 

abetting in connection with the alleged contempt of Trudeau, Sant has a reasonable basis for 

assertion of his privilege against self incrimination. Sant contends this assertion is reasonable 

either in connection with a potential prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2 and §402 or under other 

provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code that might be deemed to be implicated by 

Trudeau’s alleged contemptuous conduct.

7. A Court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it “requires disclosure of privileged 

or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies,” or if it “subjects a person to undue 

burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A).

8. In addition to his objection to the “act of production” under U.S. v. Doe, Sant has 

also objected that the requests stated in Paragraph Nos. 1-5 are overly broad, unduly 

burdensome, and result in unjustifiable harassment of Sant, an individual who is employed by a 

non-party to this post-judgment litigation between the FTC and defendant, Kevin Trudeau

(“Trudeau”). The request in Paragraph 3, for example, requests every document both within and 

beyond his possession relating in any way to Kevin Trudeau or Nataliya Babenko and any 

Trudeau-Affiliated Entity and seeks thousands of documents without providing any reference to 

any specific terms, events, occurrences, or transactions for which documents are being sought. 

Based on the FTC’s request in Paragraph 3, it is impossible to determine whether or how 
4

documents are relevant to the FTC’s execution on the April 16, 2010 judgment entered against 

Trudeau.

9. As a non-party to this litigation, Sant will be unduly burdened in being required to 

review and produce thousands of documents dating from before the current monetary judgment 

being executed upon was even entered by this Court. “In keeping with the text and purpose of 

Rule 45(c)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it has been consistently held that “nonparty status” is a significant factor to be considered in determining whether the burden imposed 

by a subpoena is undue.” U.S. v. Amerigroup Illinois, Inc., Case No. 02 C 6074, 2005 WL 

3111972 at *4 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2005). 

10. Further, any analysis of the relevance of the documents requested in the Subpoena 

Duces Tecum should be subjected to a very narrow definition, given the current status of this 

case. The FTC’s is currently conducting post-judgment investigation of Kevin Trudeau, 

supposedly in furtherance of the supplemental judgment order dated April 16, 2010. Yet, the 

FTC seems to be more focused on discovering the relationships between the various “TrudeauAffiliated Entities” than on recovering monies or assets from Trudeau to satisfy the judgment. 

The documents requested by the Subpoena Duces Tecum do not appear to be intended to 

discover any individual assets of Trudeau. The Documents Requests, for example, are not 

limited to payments made or received by Trudeau. Instead, the FTC seeks communications 

between Trudeau and his wife relating to any transfer of assets over $5,000 or more from any of 

the so-called “Trudeau-Related Entities.”

11. The Court also should find the Subpoena Duces Tecum a vague, unfocused 

fishing expedition, not a narrowly-crafted request for information related to known or suspected 

assets of Trudeau that may, should the FTC choose, be levied against to satisfy the judgment. 
5

The Subpoena Duces Tecum seeks years of correspondence from Sant related in any way to 

Trudeau, his wife, or any Trudeau-Affiliated Entity without any reference to events or dates that 

have already been found relevant to this inquiry by the Court. The failure to delineate specific 

documents, information, or transactions sought by the FTC should be fatal to this Subpoena

Duces Tecum.

12. In addition, certain documents responsive to the requests in Paragraph Nos. 3-5 

may be subject to the protections of the attorney-client and work product privileges. In his 

position as an officer or employee of some of the so-called Trudeau-Affiliated Entities, Sant has 

received and sent numerous communications “related to the control, management, or operations 

of any Trudeau-Affiliated Entity,” with attorneys who represent Trudeau-Affiliated Entities. 

Any such communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work 

product doctrine and not subject to production in response to the Subpoena Duces Tecum.

13. Sant would request leave to file a memorandum in support of this motion within 

three (3) business days to set forth in more detail the bases of his grounds to quash the Subpoena 

Duces Tecum and the legal grounds for these assertions.
6

WHEREFORE, third-party respondent Suneil Sant respectfully requests this Court to 

Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum served upon Sant by the FTC, for leave to file a 

memorandum in support within three (3) business days, and for such other equitable relief as this 

Court deems appropriate and just.

Respectfully submitted,

SUNEIL SANT

BY: /s/ Evan J. Haim

One of His Attorneys

Patrick E. Deady

Evan J. Haim

Hogan Marren, Ltd.

321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1301

Chicago, Illinois 60654

312-946-1800
Exhibit A







CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Evan J. Haim, hereby certify that on this 25th day of March, 2013, and in accordance 

with the General Order on Electronic Case Filing (ECF), I served the foregoing Subpoena 

Respondent Suniel Sant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum upon the below-named 

individuals by electronic transmittal through the CM-ECF electronic filing system.

Jonathan Cohen

jcohen2@ftc.gov

Kimball Richard Anderson

kanderson@winston.com

Thomas Lee Kirsch, II

tkirsch@winston.com

Katherine E. Croswell

keroswell@winston.com

Daniel J. Donnellon

ddonnellon@ficlaw.com

Kenjiro D. LeCroix

Klecrois@ficlaw.com

/s/ Evan J. Haim