Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-52/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT

CO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 KIRITCHENKO ET AL,

Defendant. /

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTION

TO COMPEL

On May 1, 2007, Defendant Lazarenko’s Motion for a Protective Order (Doc. No. 1268) and

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Compel Defendant’s Signing Release of Freedom of

Information Form (Doc. No. 1292) came on for hearing. John Aspelin appeared for Plaintiff, and

Doron Weinberg appeared for Defendant. After full consideration of the papers and the parties’

arguments at the hearing, and for good cause shown, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion and

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion as follows:

1. Defendant Lazarenko is ordered to appear for deposition for up to three full days

during the week of May 14, 2007. Defendant Lazarenko, and Defendant Lazarenko’s

counsel, shall comply with the rules for deposition and not make speaking objections

or unduly delay responses. The Fifth Amendment privilege shall be asserted, if at all,

on a question-by-question basis. Defendant Lazarenko is cautioned that the Fifth

Amendment should only be asserted appropriately, bearing in mind the limited

remaining potential for criminal liability and Defendant Lazarenko’s previous filings

in other courts or other statements that may operate as a waiver of any Fifth

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination as to certain subject areas.

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1328 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2. If, at the close of three full days of deposition, Plaintiff believes in good faith that

more time is required to depose the witness, the parties shall meet and confer and

attempt to agree. If they cannot agree, Plaintiff may apply to the Court for leave to

extend the three day time limit based on a showing of truly good cause.

3. Defendant Lazarenko is ordered to immediately request from the F.B.I. a copy of

reports of F.B.I. interviews of Mr. Lazarenko, pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (d). Defendant is ordered to produce a copy of the

reports it receives to Plaintiff within 1 day of receipt from the government.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1328 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 2