USA v. Real Property Located at 3115 Claremont Drive, Oroville, CA

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/8/2010 GRANTING 30 Motion to Compel; Claimants shall respond to all interrogatories and requests for production w/out objection, except on the basis of attorney client privilege, by 11/8/2010. (Matson, R)

USA v. Real Property Located at 3115 Claremont Drive, Oroville, CA

Doc. 36

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 Previously pending on this court's law and motion calendar for October 7, 2010 was plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. Claimants did not file an opposition. The government was represented by Kristin Door. Claimant Lacy was represented by John Balazs, who also appeared on behalf of Bruce Locke, counsel for co-claimant Howell. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the motion, the court now issues the following order. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The government's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and production of documents, filed September 23, 2010, is granted. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3115 CLAREMONT DRIVE, OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA, BUTTE COUNTY, APN:079-010-012-0, INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, Defendant. / ORDER CIV.S. 08-1050- JAM GGH

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

2. Claimants shall respond to all interrogatories and requests for production without objection, except on the basis of attorney client privilege, by November 8, 2010.1 DATED: October 8, 2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows GREGORY G. HOLLOWS U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
G G H : 0 7 6 : U S R e a l P r o p 1 0 5 0 .m t c .w p d

The parties have stipulated and claimants will present a proposed order to extend the current discovery cutoff to the district judge forthwith. The instant order is effective only if the district court grants the request. If the discovery deadline is not extended, this court will consider a remedy for claimants' lack of compliance. 2

1