USA v. Chaudhari et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KETANKUMAR CHAUDHARI, RASHMI
SAMANI, AMIT P. CHAUDHARI, AMIT B.
CHAUDHARI, and MAHESHKUMAR
CHAUDHARI,
Defendants.
4:25CR3071
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Government’s Objection, Filing No. 132, to
the Court’s Order, Filing No. 122. The Government moves the Court to rescind the portion
of its Order providing that the Government bear all reasonable travel and subsistence
expenses for Defendants’ attorneys to attend the deposition of a material witness. The
Court construes the Government’s objection as a motion to reconsider this portion of its
Order. Defendant Amit P. Chaudhari (“Amit P.”) filed an untimely response opposing the
Government’s motion. Filing No. 146. No other Defendants have filed a response and the
time to do so has passed.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15(d) provides that, if the government requests
the deposition, “the court may—or if the defendant is unable to bear the deposition
expenses, the court must—order the government to pay . . . any reasonable travel and
subsistence expenses of the defendant and the defendant’s attorney to attend the
deposition.”
4:25-cr-03071-SMB-JMD Doc # 147 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 1 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
Amit P. argues the Court must order the Government to pay his attorney’s
reasonable travel and subsistence expenses because the Court appointed him CJA
counsel after reviewing his financial affidavit. See Filing No. 40. However, Amit P.
subsequently retained counsel. This “raises a ‘serious question’ as to whether [Amit P.] is
indigent.” Brown v. United States, 716 Fed. App’x 488, 491 (6th Cir. 2017) (unpublished)
(citing United States v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1134 (6th Cir. 1990)). Notably, Amit P. did not
submit any evidence that he is unable to bear the burden of the deposition expenses.
And, upon review, Amit P.’s financial affidavit alone does not support this conclusion. See
generally United States v. Brockman, 183 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 1999) (“Financial inability
to pay [under the CJA] ‘is not the same as indigence or destitution[.]’” (quoting Museitef
v. United States, 131 F.3d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1997)).
The remaining Defendants did not submit any evidence they are unable to bear
the burden of the deposition expenses. All Defendants have now retained counsel.1
Accordingly, the Court may, but is not required to, order the Government to pay the travel
and subsistence expenses of Defendants’ attorneys to attend the deposition. Amit P. sets
forth no legal authority outside of Rule 15 to support his position.
The deposition will occur in Nebraska, the district in which this case is pending.
Amit P. opted to retain an attorney who lives in Georgia because this attorney speaks his
language (Gujarati). This is not a case in which defense attorneys are forced to travel
because the Government wants to depose the witness in a different location. Cf. United
States v. Csolkovits, 794 F. Supp. 2d 764, 765–66 (E.D. Mich. June 6, 2011) (court initially
ordered government to pay defense attorney’s travel and subsistence expenses when
government moved to depose two witnesses in the Bahamas and later ordered
government to pay to retain a Bahamian attorney for defendant). Moreover, the
Government is paying all other costs of the deposition. Under these circumstances, the
1 The Court notes it also found Defendant Amit B. Chaudhari eligible for appointed counsel upon review of
his financial affidavit. Filing No. 100. Amit B. later retained counsel. Filing No. 121. Accordingly, Amit B.
was similarly required to show that, despite retaining counsel, he is unable to bear the deposition expenses
such that the Court must order the Government to bear the expenses. He did not do so.
4:25-cr-03071-SMB-JMD Doc # 147 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 2 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
Court declines to exercise its discretion to order the Government to pay for Amit P.’s
attorney to attend the deposition.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court grants the Government’s motion.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1) The Government’s Objection, Filing No. 132, is granted.
2) The portion of the Court’s Order, Filing No. 122, requiring the Government
to bear “any reasonable travel and subsistence expenses” for Defendants’
attorneys to attend the deposition is vacated.
3) The Court’s Order (Filing No. 122), as modified by Filing No. 143, otherwise
remains unchanged.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Jacqueline M. DeLuca
United States Magistrate Judge
4:25-cr-03071-SMB-JMD Doc # 147 Filed: 11/21/25 Page 3 of 3 - Page ID #
<pageID>