Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-54/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 ON MOTION TO EXTEND

DISCOVERY CUTOFF

Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Pretrial Discovery Cut-Off came on for hearing on May 10,

2007, at 2:30 p.m. John Aspelin represented Plaintiff; Zuzana Svihra Ikels represented Defendant

Michael Menko; Daniel Horowitz represented Defendant Pavlo Lazarenko; Doron Weinberg

represented Pavlo Lazarenko, Tamara Lazarenko, and Dugsbery, Inc.; Tracy Clements represented

Defendants Peter Kiritchenko, Izabella Kiritchenko, Ludmila Kiritchenko, ABS, and Brancross. 

After fully considering the papers and the arguments at the hearing, and for good cause shown, the

Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion as follows:

1. Plaintiff may pursue follow-up discovery as to information learned for the first time

during the April 2007 deposition of Peter Kiritchenko, or learned from discovery

served or produced less than one month before the April 27, 2007 discovery cutoff.

2. Follow-up discovery may include third party discovery from accounting firms Shwiff

Levy Polo, LLP and Rowbotham & Company, LLP; and discovery from the attorney

Graham Taylor or the law firm Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro related to the formation of

a corporate tax structure for Mr. Kiritchenko. Discovery of information or documents

from Graham Taylor or the law firm Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro shall be limited to

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1355 Filed 05/15/07 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

information or documents unavailable to Plaintiff at the time of Mr. Taylor’s October 

1999 deposition due to an assertion of the attorney-client privilege.

3. Plaintiff may pursue limited follow-up discovery if information is learned for the first

time during the May 2007 deposition of Pavlo Lazarenko, or learned from discovery

served or produced less than one month before the April 27, 2007 discovery cutoff. 

4. Defendants must promptly produce all discovery pending at the time of the April 27,

 2007 discovery cut-off, including discovery ordered by the Court’s Orders of April 4

and May 2, 2007. 

5. Notwitstanding the foregoing, Defendant Lazarenko is not required to comply with 

¶3 of the Court’s May 2, 2007 Order until the Court rules on Defendant Lazarenko’s

Request for Partial Reconsideration (Doc. No. 1346).

6. All other follow-up discovery is closed as to information that was known to Plaintiff,

or witnesses who were clearly identified, before the discovery cut-off. 

7. No further Motion to Compel may be brought by any party unless that party obtains

leave of the Court by making a showing of truly good cause excusing that party’s

failure to bring the Motion to Compel within 10 days after the April 27, 2007

discovery cutoff.

8. The additional discovery granted by this Order shall be completed no later than June

15, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1355 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 2