Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-5/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

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 REBUTTAL TO

DEFENDANTS KIRITCHENKOS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

AND REBUTTAL TO TIMING OF

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT”

(Docket No. 859)

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Administrative Rebuttal to Defendants Kiritchenkos’

Administrative Motion to Seal and Rebuttal to Timing of Motion for Summary Judgment”

(“Plaintiff’s Motion”), filed October 18, 2005, by which motion plaintiff asks the Court “to

rescind and/or hold in abeyance its order granting a protective order and filing under seal

and to continue Kiritchenko’s Motion For Summary Judgment pending resolution of

Plaintiff’s cross-Motion for Revoking Protective Order.” (See Plaintiff’s Motion at 1-2.) The

Kiritchenko defendants have opposed the motion.

Plaintiff’s request that the Court rescind its October 17, 2005 order granting

defendants’ motion to file certain documents under seal will be denied without prejudice. 

Defendants’ request to file certain documents under seal was supported by the terms of a

protective order that remains in effect. Although plaintiff has filed a motion to revoke the

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 865 Filed 10/25/05 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 motion has been noticed for hearing before Magistrate Judge Laporte on

November 22, 2005.

2

protective order, that motion has not yet been heard by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D.

Laporte.1

 If Magistrate Judge Laporte grants the motion to revoke the protective order,

plaintiff may then file a new motion to unseal the documents that were filed under seal

pursuant to the Court’s October 17, 2005 order.

Additionally, plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

seeks a continuance of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, to a date after

Magistrate Judge Laporte rules on the pending motion to revoke the protective order. Rule

56(f) provides: “Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the

party cannot for 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 specifically identify relevant existing

information 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, plaintiff argues that it needs to show the above-referenced confidential

documents “to the National Institute of State and Law of Ukraine . . . , as well as to the

Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.” (See Lambert Decl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff fails to explain, however,

what information it expects to obtain from these entities that would preclude summary

judgment. In addition, although plaintiff contends that such confidential documents are

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 865 Filed 10/25/05 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

“important for asserting estoppel against Kiritchenko” and that the exclusion of information

set forth in the confidential documents “from Kiritchenko’s ‘adjudications’ in Ukraine is

important for Plaintiff’s position to prove the lack of due process in Ukrainian courts in his

case,” (see Plaintiff’s Motion at 3-4), plaintiff cites no authority in support of his position,

and does not explain why such arguments cannot be made while the documents remain

filed under seal. Consequently, plaintiff has not shown good cause for a Rule 56(f)

continuance.

Nevertheless, because numerous motions have been noticed for hearing on

November 18, 2005, the date defendants’ motion for summary judgment is noticed to be

heard, it is unlikely that the Court would be able to rule promptly on defendants’ motion

even if the current schedule were maintained. Under such circumstances, a continuance of

the summary judgment hearing until after Magistrate Judge Laporte rules on the pending

motion to revoke the protective order is unlikely to materially delay the resolution of the

motion for summary judgment. For this reason, the Court will grant plaintiff’s request for a

continuance.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to rescind the Court’s October 18, 2005 order granting

defendants’ motion to file certain documents under seal is hereby DENIED without

prejudice.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a Rule 56(f) continuance of defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is hereby GRANTED, and the November 18, 2005 hearing on the motion is

hereby VACATED. Defendants may renotice the motion for hearing after Magistrate Judge

Laporte rules on plaintiff’s motion to revoke the protective order.

This order terminates Docket No. 859.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 865 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 3