United States v. All Funds on Deposit At, Civil Action No. 2004-0798

This is a motion for reconsideration (styled as motion for leave) by Pavel Lazarenko and his children to add an affirmative defense of undue delay in an in rem forfeiture action against assets at Bank Julius Baer, Guernsey branch.
The court previously denied leave to add the undue delay defense as futile in an opinion dated January 10, 2017, concluding no facts could be pleaded to show the United States unduly delayed filing the complaint or commencing discovery.
The United States filed the in rem action on May 14, 2004, and an amended complaint on June 30, 2005; Lazarenko was convicted before the initial filing and sentenced in August 2006.
The court held that even if there had been delay, Lazarenko failed to allege any prejudice from the delay and did not provide factual support for a discovery-delay claim.
The new motion attempts to present prejudice arguments and documentary evidence, but the court finds the arguments and documents are not newly discovered and could have been raised in the original briefing, so they are forfeited.
The court denies the motion to add the undue delay defense, concluding Lazarenko has not satisfied standards for reconsidering an interlocutory order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should allow amendment to add an undue-delay affirmative defense	Motioners (Lazarenko) contend the court mischaracterized prior futility ruling and that prejudice now can be shown with appended evidence	U.S.: prior ruling correct; no undue delay in filing; no pleaded prejudice; strategic choices caused any discovery delay	Denied — amendment futile; prior conclusion stands
Whether new evidence justifies reconsideration	Lazarenko: appended documents prove prejudice and are newly relevant	U.S.: documents and arguments could have been presented earlier; not new	Denied — evidence not "new" and arguments forfeited
Proper standard for reconsidering interlocutory order	Lazarenko: seeks reconsideration on claim court erred in pleading analysis	U.S.: reiterates court's discretion and prior reasoning	Court applies standard (intervening law, new evidence, or clear error) and finds none met
Whether delay (if any) prejudiced Lazarenko	Lazarenko: now argues prejudice from discovery delay	U.S.: no prejudice shown; burden to plead prejudice	Denied — no prejudice alleged earlier and not plausibly shown now

Estate of Klieman v. Palestinian Auth., 82 F. Supp. 3d 237 (D.D.C. 2015) (district-court reconsideration of interlocutory orders is within court’s discretion)
Keystone Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235 (D.D.C. 2003) (discussing standards for motions for reconsideration)
Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Servs., Inc., 630 F.3d 217 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (relief from interlocutory orders available “as justice requires”)
Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 309 F.R.D. 77 (D.D.C. 2015) (reconsideration standards and Rule 54(b) relevance)
United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (prior decision in this forfeiture litigation)
United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 229 F. Supp. 3d 62 (D.D.C. 2017) (court’s earlier opinion denying leave to add undue-delay defense)