L

SEP 2 8 2018 ^

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TF
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
ALEXANDRIA. ViRGlNIA

Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. l:18-MJ-464

V.

ELENA ALEKSEEVNA KHUSYAYNOVA,

UNDER SEAL

Defendant.

MOTION TO SEAL ARREST WARRANT.CRIMINAL COMPLAINT,AND
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 49(BI

The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 49(B) of
the Local Criminal Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,

now asks for an Order to Seal the arrest warrant, complaint, this motion, the order, and the

affidavit in support ofthe complaint and arrest warrant, until motion of the government to unseal.
I.

REASONS FOR SEALING (Local Rule 49(B)(1))

1.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been investigating a conspiracy to

defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The conspiracy involves allegations

against a Russian national for her role in efforts to interfere in the U.S. political system, including
the 2018 midterm election.

2.

The United States government's policy is to utilize all tools at its disposal in a

coordinated manner to disrupt foreign influence efforts of the type alleged in the complaint
affidavit. Given the sensitivities of this matter and the government's need for coordination,

premature disclosure of the specific details of and charges against the defendant could jeopardize
the government's efforts relating to these activities.

 3. In order to provide the government with the necessary time to ensure that the
criminal charges do not unduly impact other efforts, the government requests that the arrest
warrant, complaint, this motion, the order, and af?davit in support of the complaint and arrest
warrant be sealed until motion of the government to unseal.

11. REFERENCES TO GOVERNING CASE LAW (Local Rule 

4. The Court has the inherent power to seal complaints and af?davits in support of
complaints. United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir. 1982); _S_ta16_of
Arizona v. Maypenny, 672 F.2d 761, 765 (9th Cir. 1982); Times Mirror Company v. United
m, 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989); s_e_e_a_lsg Shea v. Gabriel, 520 F.2d 879 (1st Cir. 1975);
United States v. Hubbard, 650 .2d 293 (DC. Cir. 1980); In re Braugl_iton, 520 F.2d 765, 766
(9th Cir. 1975). The trial court has supervisory power over its own records and may, in its
discretion, seal documents if the public?s right of access is outweighed by competing interests.
In re Knith Pub. Co., 743 .2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984).

111. PERIOD OF TIME GOVERNMENT SEEKS To HAVE MATTER
REMAIN UNDER SEAL (Local Rule 

5. The arrest warrant, the complaint, this motion, the order, and the af?davit would
need to remain sealed until the government determines that the unsealing is appropriate and
makes a motion for that purpose. The government anticipates that it will only need the
documents to remain sealed for a short period of time.

6. The United States has considered alternatives less drastic than sealing at this time
and has found none that would suf?ce to protect this investigation. The United States will move
to unseal the documents as soon as practicable.

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that the arrest warrant, the

complaint, the af?davit in support of the complaint and arrest warrant, and this Motion to Seal

and proposed Order be sealed until further Order of the Court. Notwithstanding this request, the

United States asks to provide copies as necessary to execute the arrest warrants, including to

foreign authorities.

Respectfully Submitted,

G. Zachary Terwilliger
United States Attorney

 If,
-- I



11// 
a? Prabhu
Chief, Cybercrime Unit
Assistant United States Attorney
US. Attorney?s Office
2100 amieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: (703) 299-3700
Fax: (703) 299-3981
iavprabhu??usdoi . gov