United States of America v. $28,268.00 In U S Currency

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIM AND ANSWER OF CLAIMANT TROY OLSON AND TO ENTER DEFAULT JUDGMENT 18 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (lc). Modified on 9/25/2014 .(lc).

1
2
3

O

4

NO JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

$28,268.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

15

Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 13-08372 DDP (CWx)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO STRIKE CLAIM AND ANSWER OF
CLAIMANT TROY OLSON AND TO ENTER
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
[DKT. NO. 18]

16
17

Presently before the Court is the Government’s motion to

18

strike Claimant Troy Olson’s claim and answer and to enter default

19

judgment (the “Motion”). (Docket No. 18.) For the reasons stated in

20

this order, the Motion is GRANTED.

21

I. Background

22

Plaintiff United States of America (the “Government”) brings

23

this forfeiture action against the Defendant $28,268.00 in U.S.

24

currency (“Defendant Currency”), alleging that the Defendant

25

Currency represents proceeds of narcotics trafficking or was

26

intended to be used to facilitate narcotics trafficking. (See

27

generally Complaint, Docket No. 1.) Claimant Troy Olson (“Olson”),

28

proceeding pro se, timely filed a claim to the Defendant Currency

1

and an answer to the Government’s complaint. (Docket Nos. 8, 10.) A

2

litigation schedule was issued and the Government began discovery

3

regarding Olson’s claimed interest in the Defendant Currency.

4

The Government now moves to strike Olson’s claim and answer,

5

arguing that Olson has failed to answer, without objection, the

6

Government’s March 25, 2014 written discovery requests. Olson

7

initially failed to respond to the written interrogatories and

8

document requests. As a result, the parties entered into a

9

stipulation, approved by Magistrate Judge Woehrle on May 14, 2014

10

and issued as a court order, that Olson would have until May 30,

11

2014 to respond to the discovery. (See Docket Nos. 16, 17.) The

12

Government now contends that although Olson prepared and sent

13

answers to the interrogatories, those responses are “non-

14

responsive, incomplete and indecipherable.” (Motion, Docket No. 18,

15

p.2.) Further, Olson has not produced a single document in response

16

to the Government’s document request. (Id.) Olson failed to correct

17

these deficiencies in his responses, even when the Government

18

requested that Olson supplement his responses. (Id.) As a result,

19

the Government moves to strike Olson’s claim to the Defendant

20

Currency and his answer to the complaint pursuant to Rule 37 and to

21

have default judgment entered in the Government’s favor. Olson has

22

not filed any opposition to the Motion.

23

II. Legal Standard

24

“If a party ... fails to obey an order to provide or permit

25

discovery, including an order under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a), the

26

court where the action is pending may issue further just orders.

27

They may include the following: ... (iii) striking pleadings in

28

whole or in part; ... (vi) rendering a default judgment against the
2

1

disobedient party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). “A district court

2

must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case

3

for failure to comply with a court order: (1) the public’s interest

4

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to

5

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

6

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

7

and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Malone v. U.S.

8

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987).

9

III. Discussion

10

Claimant Olson has failed to file any opposition to the

11

Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Olson’s failure to file an

12

opposition to the Motion “may be deemed consent to the granting ...

13

of the motion.” Therefore, the Court may grant the Motion on that

14

basis alone. However, the Court also finds that the Motion may be

15

granted on the merits.

16

The Government had made a sufficient showing that Olson failed

17

to properly comply with court orders regarding discovery and that

18

follow-up efforts by the Government to attempt to obtain proper

19

discovery responses from Olson were unsuccessful. Though Olson,

20

proceeding pro se, eventually responded to the interrogatories, his

21

handwritten responses are often brief and non-responsive. (See

22

Docket No. 19, Notice of Errata, Exh. E.) Even were the Court to

23

accept Olson’s interrogatory responses as sufficient, Olson’s

24

response to the Government’s request for production is woefully

25

insufficient, as Olson never produced a single document in response

26

to the Government’s request. Instead, Olson listed the documents

27

that, apparently, are responsive to those requests. (See id. at

28

p.8.) Counsel for the Government then sent Olson a letter, dated
3

1

June 11, 2014, informing Olson that the discovery responses were

2

insufficient and that this Motion would follow if the deficiencies

3

were not corrected. (Rodgers Decl., Docket No. 18, ¶ 7; see also

4

Exh. F.) Therefore, the Government has established that Olson

5

failed to comply with a court order by not properly responding to

6

the discovery specifically ordered by Magistrate Judge Woehrle and

7

failing to correct identified deficiencies in the responses

8

provided.

9

Further, the Court finds that the factors in this case weigh

10

in favor of striking Olson’s claim. The first two factors weigh in

11

favor of granting the Motion, as the litigation cannot proceed

12

expeditiously with Olson continuing to fail to comply with

13

discovery requests, to which the Government needs responses in

14

order to prosecute its forfeiture action. Though there may be

15

prejudice to Olson as a result of granting the Motion, Olson’s

16

failure to oppose the Motion, coupled with the prejudice to the

17

Government if it were forced to await proper responses that may

18

never be produced, weighs in favor of granting the Motion. As to

19

less drastic sanctions, the Government was already forced to obtain

20

an order from Judge Woehrle stating that Olson must respond to the

21

Government’s requests by May 30, 2014. The responses received were

22

insufficient, especially as to the lack of production of any

23

documents. The Government then informed Olson of the deficiencies

24

in his responses and gave him nearly another month to supplement or

25

correct his responses. Therefore, Olson has already been given the

26

benefit of less drastic action and multiple opportunities to

27

respond properly. Finally, although the fourth factor weighs

28

against granting the Motion (as it always does), a decision on the
4

1

merits is impossible where the Government cannot obtain the

2

discovery to which it is entitled. Therefore, the Court finds that

3

the factors weigh in favor of granting the Motion.

4

IV. Conclusion

5

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

6

Olson’s claims and answer are therefore stricken, and the Court

7

enters default judgment in favor of the Government.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11
12

Dated: September 25, 2014
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5