Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-15/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

1

 On February 6, 2006, the Court issued an order vacating the February 10, 2006

hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and stated that the hearing would be

rescheduled, if necessary, at a later date.

2

 UTI also asserts in the instant motion that defendants Pavlo Lazarenko and

Tamara Lazarenko (jointly, “Lazarenko”) have failed to comply with their discovery

obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which “raises the issue of

sanctions.” (See Motion at 1.) The Court will not consider such allegations in the context

of the instant administrative motion. If UTI wishes to pursue such allegations, it must file a

separate motion before Magistrate Judge Laporte to compel discovery or for discovery

sanctions.

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.

PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-99-3073 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION (1) FOR

CONTINUANCE TO ALLOW TIME TO

CONDUCT FORENSIC DOCUMENT

EXAMINATION AND (2) TO CORRECT

RECORD

(Docket No. 937)

Before the Court is the administrative motion filed February 1, 2006 by plaintiff

Universal Trading & Investment Co. (“UTI”), by which UTI seeks a continuance of the

hearing on defendants’ motion for summary judgment to allow UTI to conduct a forensic

document examination.1 UTI also seeks leave of court to “correct” the record.2 Defendants

Peter Kiritchenko, Izabella Kiritchenko, and Ludmilla Kiritchenko (collectively, “Kiritchenko”)

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 1 of 7
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

have filed opposition to the motion. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, no reply has been

filed.

A. Continuance for Purpose of Conducting Forensic Document Examination

UTI seeks a continuance of the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment so that it may conduct a forensic document examination of certain exhibits

submitted by defendants in support of their motion. UTI contends that the copy of a July 7,

2005 Ukrainian court decision (“July 7 decision”) filed October 14, 2005 by Kiritchenko in

support of Kiritchenko’s motion for summary judgment is materially different from the copy

of the same decision filed January 30, 2006 by Lazarenko. In particular, UTI points out that

the Kiritchenko version consists of 37 handwritten pages, (see Clements Decl. Ex. BB),

while the Lazarenko version consists of 34 handwritten pages, (see attachment to Logosha

Decl.). UTI further notes that only the Kiritchenko version contains a “verification with a

signature and the Court’s stamp,” which verification is lacking from the Lazarenko version. 

(Compare Clements Decl. Ex. BB, last page with Logosha Decl., last page of handwritten

attachment.) UTI contends that the handwriting in both versions is “extraordinar[il]y

car[e]less, omitting lines and paragraphs when apparently being negligently copied from

some source, with numerous grammatical mistakes in the Ukrainian language, highly

unlikely to have been written by an appellate judge[.]” (See Motion at 3.) UTI additionally

contends that the respective translations submitted by Kiritchenko and Lazarenko are

markedly inconsistent, and that the translation submitted by Lazarenko appears to “fill in

the gaps” noted in the translation of the same document submitted by Kiritchenko. UTI

seeks a continuance to afford it time to submit the two different versions of the July 7

decision to a forensic document examiner and to submit the examiner’s expert opinion to

the Court as “evidence of fraud committed by Kiritchenko’s and Lazarenko’s agents in their

absentia in Ukrainian courts.” (See Motion at 4.)

In response, Kiritchenko states, albeit without citation to a declaration, that the

differences in the lengths of the two versions of the July 7 decision are the result of two

pages in the Kiritchenko version having been copied twice, and one page having been

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 2 of 7
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

 Additionally, the two copies have not been photocopied in the same manner; some

of the text has been cut off at the edge of one copy but appears in the other copy.

3

inadvertently deleted from the Lazarenko version. The Court, having conducted its own

review of the documents, has confirmed Kiritchenko’s statement, and agrees that the two

copies of the documents are otherwise identical, with the exception that the court stamp on

the final page is missing from the Lazarenko version.3 

Kiritchenko further argues that “the fact that the two copies of the court decision

were verified and stamped in different manners by Ukrainian officials does not mean that

either decision is fraudulent or was fraudulently-obtained,” and that “immaterial” differences

in translations likewise do not suggest fraud. (See Opp. at 3.) The Court agrees that

because the content of the two copies of the July 7 decision are identical, the lack of a

stamp on one copy does not appear to be material. Additionally, the Court has reviewed

the respective translations submitted by Kiritchenko and Lazarenko, and agrees that the

minor differences in the two translations are not material. 

Moreover, as Kiritchenko correctly notes, the July 7, 2005 decision has been

authenticated by a witness with personal knowledge. G.I. Korotka (“Korotka”) attests that

he represents Lazarenko in the Ukrainian litigation, and that he was present when the

July 7 decision was announced in open court. (See Korotka Decl. at 1, 4.) Korotka further

attests that the July 7 decision was handwritten by the presiding judge, V.M. Korotun, and

that the copy of the July 7 decision submitted to the Court is “authentic and corresponds to

the full content” of the decision that was announced in open court in Ukraine. (See id. at

4-5.) Svetlana O. Logosha attests she obtained from Korotka the copy of the July 7

decision she submitted to the Court on behalf of Lazarenko, and that she obtained the

English translation of the July 7 decision submitted on his behalf. (See Logosha Decl.

at 2.)

 A motion for a continuance of the hearing on a motion for summary judgment is

governed by Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 56(f) provides:

“Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court

may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to

be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other

order as is just.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). A party seeking a continuance, pursuant to Rule

56(f), “must show how additional discovery would preclude summary judgment and why a

party cannot immediately provide ‘specific facts’ demonstrating a genuine issue of material

fact.” See Mackey v. Pioneer Nat'l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir. 1989). The party

seeking a continuance must identify the specific, relevant evidence that he needs, and

make clear how that information would preclude summary judgment. See id.; see also

Wellman v. Writers Guild of Am., West, Inc., 146 F.3d 666, 674 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming

denial of Rule 56(f) motion where district court determined that desired evidence was

unnecessary to plaintiff’s case and plaintiff did not explain how information he sought would

preclude summary judgment).

Here, although UTI identifies the evidence it wishes to submit to the Court, it does

not explain how that evidence will preclude entry of summary judgment for defendants. UTI

does not dispute that the Ukrainian court of appeal issued a decision on July 7, 2005, and

concedes that the decision has been appealed by the General Prosecutor of Ukraine

(“GPOU”). Although UTI has submitted a copy of the appellate brief filed by the GPOU, it

does not contend, for example, that the issues appealed therein raise doubts about the

authenticity of the copies of the July 7 decision that were submitted by defendants in the

instant action. Although UTI raises questions about the translations submitted, both by

Kiritchenko and Lazarenko, it does not point to any material inaccuracies in either

translation. Because UTI has not demonstrated how the results of a forensic document

examination may preclude entry of summary judgment for defendants, the Court finds UTI

has not set forth good cause for continuing the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 4 of 7
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

4

 This is not the first time UTI has failed to set forth good cause for a Rule 56(f)

continuance. In an order filed October 25, 2005, the Court found UTI had not set forth good

cause for a requested Rule 56(f) continuance because UTI failed to explain how the

evidence it hoped to obtain would preclude entry of summary judgment. (See Order

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s “Administrative Rebuttal to Defendants

Kiritchenkos’ Administrative Motion to Seal and Rebuttal to Timing of Motion for Summary

Judgment,” filed Oct. 25, 2005, at 2-3.)

5

judgment.4

B. “Correcting” the Record

UTI argues that Kiritchenko has misrepresented the record by stating, in

Kiritchenko’s reply to UTI’s opposition to Kiritchenko’s motion for summary judgment, that

UTI “does not attempt to demonstrate that the prosecutor was authorized by Ukrainian law

to assign claims to UTI.” (See Reply at 1.) According to UTI, its opposition to the motion

for summary judgment incorporated by reference “the existing record and the Expert

Opinions in its support in the case docket.” (See Motion at 4.) In particular, UTI asks the

Court to consider the declarations of V. M. Pogorilko, V. Pechota and V.I. Kuznetsov, which

previously were filed in 2000 as Docket Nos. 403, 404, and 405 (collectively, “2000

Declarations”).

UTI fails to cite to any specific page of its opposition that incorporates the 2000

Declarations by reference. Although UTI’s opposition states, in general terms, that the

opposition is based on “the complete files and records of this action,” (see Opp. at IV),

nowhere in UTI’s opposition does it cite to any of the 2000 Declarations. Indeed, the

opposition contains no argument whatsoever that the Prosecutor General of Ukraine was

authorized under Ukrainian law to assign claims to UTI.

The Ninth Circuit repeatedly has held that the district court is not required to search

the record sua sponte in search of evidence that would preclude summary judgment. See,

e.g., Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996) (“It is not our task, or that of the

district court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. We rely on the

nonmoving party to identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes

summary judgment.”); see also Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School District, 237 F.3d

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 5 of 7
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

5

 As noted, the Court vacated the hearing date, but stated it would reschedule the

hearing, if necessary, at a later date. 

6

1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The district court need not examine the entire file for evidence

establishing a genuine issue of fact, where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing

papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found.”) UTI’s reference in

its opposition to “the complete files and records of this action,” (see Opp. at IV), is

inadequate to alert the Court or defendants that UTI intended to rely on the 2000

Declarations.

Pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, UTI is

permitted to submit declarations “prior to the day of hearing.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). 

The Commentary to Civil Local Rule 56-1 interprets Rule 56(c) as permitting the filing of

opposing affidavits “the day prior to the hearing.” See Civil L.R. 56-1. As the instant

motion was filed prior to the scheduled February 10, 2006 hearing date,5

 the Court will

allow UTI to supplement its opposition with the 2000 Declarations. Because defendants

have not had an opportunity to respond to the 2000 Declarations, however, the Court will

afford defendants leave to file, no later than fourteen days from the date of this order, a

surreply of no more than ten pages in length addressing the 2000 Declarations.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, UTI’s administrative motion is hereby GRANTED in

part and DENIED in part, as follows:

1. UTI’s motion to continue the hearing on defendants’ motion for summary

judgment to afford UTI time to obtain and file a forensic document examination is DENIED.

2. UTI’s motion to “correct” the record to include the 2000 Declarations as part of its

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendants may

file, no later than fourteen days from the date of this order, a surreply addressing the

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

 issues raised in the 2000 Declaration.

This order terminates Docket No. 937.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2006 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 967 Filed 02/28/06 Page 7 of 7