Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-03073-6/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

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PETRO MIKOLAYEVICH KIRITCHENKO,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-99-03073 MMC (EDL)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REVOKE PROTECTIVE

ORDER

On November 22, 2005, the parties appeared before the Court to argue Plaintiff’s Motion to

Revoke Protective Order. The Court had entered the protective order at issue on January 8, 2004,

based on Defendants’ representations that the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine (the

“GPOU”) had requested that certain documents it produced be treated as confidential. Plaintiff now

requests that the Court revoke the protective order so that it might share certain sealed documents

with individuals at the National Institute of State and Law of Ukraine, the Ministry of Justice of

Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Under the terms of the protective order, Plaintiff

is entitled to disclose the documents to any consultants or experts it retains, provided these

consultants first sign a confidentiality agreement. Plaintiff contends, however, that the individuals

to whom it seeks to disclose the documents cannot be retained or serve as consultants, but may issue

official statements on the basis of documents submitted for official review. Plaintiff desires to

obtain such opinions to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which is currently

pending before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney. Plaintiff accordingly seeks to revoke the

protective order in this action.

 

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 872 Filed 11/29/05 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

In opposing the motion to revoke, Defendants do not argue that they have any interest in

keeping the documents sealed, but only that they are honoring the GPOU’s request for

confidentiality, and that nothing has changed since January 2004 to warrant modification or

revocation of the protective order, to which Plaintiff stipulated. Plaintiff maintains that it has been

unable to find any GPOU official to substantiate this request. Neither party has provided any

documentary evidence establishing the GPOU’s official position on the matter. In light of the fact

that almost two years have elapsed since the documents were originally sealed, that the GPOU has

undergone personnel changes and that the officials who originally asked Defendants to treat the

documents confidentially are no longer at the GPOU, that Defendants cannot articulate a basis for

keeping the documents sealed nor provide a declaration from a GPOU official requesting that they

remain sealed, and that Plaintiff has provided a good reason to unseal the documents, the Court

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and revokes the protective order as it applies to documents provided by

the GPOU. 

By this order, the Court makes no finding as to the relevance of these documents to

Plaintiff’s case generally, or to its opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff will

disseminate the unsealed documents only to those institutions identified in its Motion to Revoke

Protective Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2005 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:99-cv-03073-MMC Document 872 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2