Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-43/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,

Defendants.

/

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

DENYING MOTION FOR

TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On November 17, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion that requested, among other relief,

terminating sanctions due to the asserted failure of Dugsbery to participate in discovery. See Doc.

No. 1102. On December 11, 2006, Judge Chesney referred the dispute to the undersigned for a

report and recommendation. See Doc. No. 1140. After a hearing on December 19, 2006, the Court

ordered supplemental briefing on the issue. See Doc. No. 1213. After full consideration of the

papers, the Court finds this matter appropriate for determination without further hearing.

Plaintiff’s request for terminating sanctions should be denied. At best, Plaintiff has

demonstrated insufficiently swift compliance by the Defendant and over-reliance on blanket

objections – conduct that up to this point at most might justify lesser sanctions. Further, Defendant

states that it expected to produce additional documents in response to discovery by January 31,

2007, and the status of that production unknown. Also, as Plaintiff recognizes, the issue of

compelling documents from related criminal proceedings produced by foreign governments, which

are apparently subject to treaty restrictions, would require detailed further briefing including

documentation regarding confidentiality under applicable treaties, if any. Plaintiff may file a

further, more targeted motion to

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1225 Filed 02/07/07 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

compel if justified, but only after meeting and conferring in-person and in good faith. Defendant is

warned, however, not to persist in improper blanket objections and to comply in good faith with the

Court's previous orders.

 Any party may serve and file specific written objections to this recommendation within ten

(10) working days after being served with a copy . See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b); Civil Local Rule 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right

to appeal the District Court’s order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 1225 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 2