Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-66/pdf.json

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

---

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

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO, 

et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-99-3073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

EXCEED VOLUME OF MOTION UNDER

RULE 59(e); DENYING AS MOOT

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL AND FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

Before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Exceed Volume of Motion

Under Rule 59(e),” filed September 18, 2007, and opposition thereto.

Plaintiff seeks to exceed this District’s 25-page limitation, see Civil Local Rule 7-2(b),

assertedly in order to file a 35-page memorandum of points and authorities, see Pl.’s

Admin. Mot. to Exceed Volume at 1:22-23, in support of plaintiff’s “Motion Pursuant to Rule

59(e) to Alter, Amend, and/or Rescind Summary Judgment dated September 7, 2007 and

to Proceed to Scheduled Trial or in the Alternative for Stay and to Grant Application for

Letters Rogatory to Ukraine” (hereinafter “Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e)”). Contrary to

plaintiff’s characterization, plaintiff’s proposed argument far exceeds the 35-page

memorandum. The memorandum is accompanied by a 12-page “Affidavit” with 83 pages

of “Exhibits,” as well as three “Annexes” consisting of a total of 49 additional pages, which

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1715 Filed 10/11/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 The Court previously denied plaintiff’s original application for issuance of a letter of

request for official records, see Order filed May 17, 2004, and original application for leave

to file a joint statement of undisputed facts, see Order filed February 7, 2006.

2

 Additionally, if plaintiff, in the future, seeks to file documents under seal, plaintiff

must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a); in particular, any request for a sealing order

must establish “that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a

trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” and “must be narrowly

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). 

2

Affidavit and Exhibits consist in great part of legal argument, in violation of the Civil Local

Rules of this District. See Civil Local Rule 7-5(b) (“An affidavit or declaration may contain

only facts . . . and must avoid conclusions and argument. . . . An affidavit or declaration not

in compliance with this rule may be stricken in whole or in part.”). The Annexes contain two

“Renewed Applications,” specifically, an application for issuance of a letter of request for

official records and an application for leave to file a joint statement of undisputed facts,1 as

well as a 37-page table presenting plaintiff’s arguments with respect to alleged factual

disputes. Together, the proposed motion and accompanying materials contain

approximately 113 pages of argument.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s “Administrative Motion to Exceed Volume of Motion Under

Rule 59(e)” is hereby DENIED, and plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e) filed

September 18, 2007, along with the “Affidavit,” “Exhibits,” and “Annexes” accompanying

said motion, is hereby STRICKEN from the record.

Plaintiff’s related “Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal,” filed

September 19, 2007, by which plaintiff requests leave to file under seal portions of three

additional affidavits offered in support of plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Rule 59(e), and

plaintiff’s “Administrative Motion for Protective Order with regard to Portions of Documents

Filed under Seal,” filed September 28, 2007, are hereby DENIED as moot.2

 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1715 Filed 10/11/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule

79-5(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1715 Filed 10/11/07 Page 3 of 3