United States of America v. $209,815 in United States Currency

Filing 48

ORDER by Judge Conti granting 21 Motion of United States to Compel Answers from Julio Figueroa to Special Interrogatories (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

$209,815 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

JULIO FIGUEROA,

17

Claimant.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C 14-0780 SC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF THE
UNITED STATES TO COMPEL ANSWERS
FROM JULIO FIGUEROA TO SPECIAL
INTERROGATORIES

19
20

I. INTRODUCTION

21

Now before the Court is Plaintiff United States of America's

22

("Plaintiff") motion to compel answers from Julio Figueroa

23

("Claimant") to special interrogatories.

24

motion is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 21, 29 ("Opp'n"), and 36

25

("Reply"), and appropriate for resolution without oral argument,

26

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

27

///

28

///

ECF No. 21 ("Mot.").

The motion is GRANTED, as explained below.

The

1
2

II. BACKGROUND
This is a civil forfeiture case arising out of $209,815 in

3

United States currency ("the currency") seized from Claimant's

4

checked luggage at the San Francisco International Airport ("SFO")

5

on September 27, 2013.

6

precise factual circumstances underlying the interaction between

7

DEA Agents and the Claimant remain an issue of contention among the

8

parties, the Court need not resolve those issues on the present

9

motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶ 1.

While the

See ECF Nos. 18, 39, 42 (describing Claimant's pending

motion to suppress and subsequent briefing).
On February 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint for civil

12

forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. Section 983 arguing that the currency is

13

subject to forfeiture as "moneys . . . furnished or intended to be

14

furnished by [a] person in exchange for a controlled

15

substance . . . [,] proceeds traceable to such an exchange, [or]

16

money[] . . . used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation

17

of [Subchapter I, Chapter 13 of Title 21, United States Code]."

18

U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

19

and answer as required under the statute, and asserting "an

20

ownership and possessory interest in, and the right to exercise

21

dominion and control over[] all the defendant property."

22

Nos. 11 ("Claim"); 14 ("Answer").

23

983(a)(4)(A), (B); Supp. R. G(5).

24

21

Claimant intervened, filing a verified claim

See ECF

See also 18 U.S.C. §

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff timely served on Claimant ten

25

special interrogatories pursuant to Supplemental Rule G(6) for

26

Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims requesting, among other

27

things, information related to Claimant's (1) circumstances of

28

acquiring the currency, (2)records relating to the currency, (3)

2

1

the source of the currency, (4) facts supporting Claimant's claims

2

of ownership and possessory interests in the currency, and (5) the

3

identity of persons having knowledge of Claimant's interest in the

4

currency. ECF No. 22 ("Kenney Decl.") Ex. A, Nos. 2-10.

5

objects to these interrogatories, arguing primarily that they seek

6

information beyond the scope of discovery permitted under

7

Supplemental Rule G(6)(a).

8

in his objections to Plaintiff's interrogatories that the requests

9

are (1) "overly broad, burdensome, and oppressive," and (2) seek

Opp'n at 2-3.

Claimant

Claimant further argues

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

information in violation of Claimant's Fourth Amendment right

11

against unreasonable searches and seizures.

12

After raising these objections, Claimant's responses do little more

13

than restate Claimant's assertion of ownership and possession of

14

the currency in his verified claim.

15

compel further answers to nine of the special interrogatories, but

16

Claimant still refuses.

Id.

Kenney Decl. Ex. B.

Now Plaintiff seeks to

See Opp'n at 2-3.

17
18

III. DISCUSSION

19

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize party-initiated

20

discovery of any evidence that is relevant to any party's claims or

21

defenses.

22

26 is generally barred prior to the initial case management

23

conference.

24

particular context of forfeiture proceedings, Supplemental Rule

25

G(6) applies, which "supersedes the discovery 'moratorium' of Rule

26

26(d)," and permits the government to file "limited interrogatories

27

at any time after a claim is filed to gather information that bears

28

on the claimant's standing."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

However, discovery under Rule

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

Nevertheless, in the

Advisory Committee Note to Subd. 6 of

3

1

Supp. R. G.

2

Circuit has stated that the rule "broadly allows the government to

3

collect information regarding the claimant's relationship to the

4

defendant property," and "contemplates that the government may seek

5

information beyond the claimant's identity and type of property

6

interest."

7

2012).

United States v. $133,420, 672 F.3d 629, 642 (9th Cir.

Here, Claimant argues that because the scope of Supplemental

8
9

While the scope of this rule is limited, the Ninth

Rule G(6) is limited to information bearing on Claimant's standing,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

and his responses to Plaintiff's special interrogatories and

11

verified claim are sufficient to establish his standing at this

12

stage, any further discovery necessarily exceeds the scope of the

13

Rule.

14

argument, and found interrogatory responses virtually identical to

15

those offered by counsel in this case insufficient.

16

("[Claimant's] premise that the only information relevant to

17

standing is the claimant's identity and interest in the defendant

18

property is simply incorrect . . . .").

19

Claimant's proffered narrow interpretation of Supplemental Rule

20

G(6) would render Supplemental Rule G(5)(a)(i)(B), which already

21

requires a verified claim to "identify the claimant and state the

22

claimant's interest in the property," superfluous.

23

Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 691 (9th Cir.

24

2003)) (restating the "cardinal rule of statutory interpretation

25

that no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant.").

26

Furthermore, Claimant's position ignores the fact that "the

27

advisory committee's note to this rule contemplates that the

28

government may seek information beyond the claimant's identity and

However, the Ninth Circuit has expressly rejected this

4

Id. at 642-43

Just as in $133,420,

Id. (quoting

Advisory Committee's Note (subsection 6)).

3

in accord with the other lower courts that have considered the

4

scope of Supplemental Rule G(6).

5

$307,970, 4:12-CV-136, 2013 WL 4095373, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 13,

6

2013) ("[P]ermissible interrogatories as to a claimant's

7

relationship to the defendant property may encompass more than just

8

the type of interest asserted in the property.") (citing $133,420,

9

at 642-43); United States v. $2,051,660, 07-cv-1338, 2008 WL

10

United States District Court

type of property interest . . . ."

2

For the Northern District of California

1

8723566, at *1 (D. Kans. Sept. 29, 2008) ("[T]he addition of

11

Supplemental Rule G(6) phrase [sic] regarding 'claimant's identity

12

and relationship to the defendant property' must allow more than a

13

mere recitation of the information already required by Supplemental

14

Rule G(5).").

15

Id. at 642 (citing Supp. R. G
This interpretation is

See, e.g., United States v.

Furthermore, unlike in $133,420, here the Government has not

16

sought admissions or production of documents, which are outside the

17

scope of the Rule and might qualify as "overly broad, burdensome,

18

and oppressive."

19

Instead, the interrogatories in this case mirror those endorsed by

20

the Ninth Circuit in $133,420, which also sought information

21

relevant to (1) the nature of the Claimant's interest, and (2) the

22

means by which the Claimant's interest was acquired (including,

23

among other things, the dates, times, circumstances of each

24

transaction, persons from which the currency was obtained, reasons

25

why it was obtained, and names and contact information for

26

witnesses to transactions in which it was obtained).

27

In other words, because Plaintiff's interrogatories are all

28

"limited to the claimant's . . . relationship to the defendant

672 F.3d at 643 n.5; Kenney Decl. Ex. B.

5

Id. at 636.

1

property," they are neither outside the scope of the Rule nor

2

impermissibly broad.

3

See Supp. R. G(6)(a).

For similar reasons, Claimant is incorrect that compelling

4

answers to interrogatories requires him to "conclusively prove" his

5

case at this stage.

6

burden of proof remains on Plaintiff to establish a connection

7

between the property and illegal drug trafficking, see 18 U.S.C. §

8

983(c)(1), the fact that some of Claimant's interrogatory responses

9

may help or hinder the Plaintiff's cause in carrying that burden

Opp'n at 3.

While Claimant is right that the

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

does not impermissibly shift the burden onto Claimant.

11

conclusion is further underscored by the Supplemental Rules' grant

12

of permission for special interrogatories at this stage in the

13

proceedings.

14

any time after the claim is filed and before discovery closes and

15

requiring answers be served within 21 days).

16

This

Supp. R. G(6)(a), (b) (permitting interrogatories at

Finally, Claimant's verified response to Plaintiff's

17

interrogatories raises an additional objection -- that Plaintiff's

18

interrogatories seek information "in violation of Claimant's Fourth

19

Amendment rights against an unreasonable search and seizure of his

20

property and his . . . right . . . to have any evidence obtained as

21

a result of such illegality suppressed in these proceedings and/or

22

any other proceeding."

23

id. at 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 (raising the same objection).

24

Nevertheless, Claimant's memorandum offers no analysis of this

25

contention.

26

determine, simply repetitive of his argument, raised in his pending

27

motion to suppress, ECF No. 18, that the evidence obtained from the

28

search of his baggage should be suppressed.

Kinney Decl. Ex. B at 5; see also, e.g.,

Claimant's argument is, as best as the Court can

6

Id.

To the extent

1

Claimant is asserting an additional objection based on the

2

interrogatories themselves, just as in $133,420, Claimant has

3

offered no "coherent support for those objections," and the Court

4

similarly rejects them.1 672 F.3d at 644.

5
6

IV. CONCLUSION
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff's motion should be

7
8

GRANTED.

Nonetheless, the Court notes that Claimant has so far

9

declined to raise any Fifth Amendment objections to these

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

interrogatories.

Because "courts must seek to accommodate the

11

defendant's right against self-incrimination in a civil forfeiture

12

proceeding," United States v. Thirteen (13) Mach. Guns, 689 F.2d

13

861, 864 (9th Cir. 1982), nothing in this order should be construed

14

to bar Claimant from raising such an objection.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States' Motion to

15
16

Compel Answers from Julio Figueroa to Special interrogatories is

17

GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Julio Figueroa shall serve

18
19

supplemental answers no later than fourteen (14) days from the date

20

of this order.

21
Dated: June 30, 2014

22
23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1

If, on the other hand, Claimant believes that ordering answers to
interrogatories would constitute a violation of his Fourth
Amendment rights independent of the search and seizure of the
currency the Court takes no position on that issue. Should
Claimant wish to raise such an objection they may do so in a motion
for a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(d).

7