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

Filing 71

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti striking 67 Motion to Strike and setting briefing schedule on 68 Amended Motion to Strike, (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2014)

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
12
13

v.
$209,815 IN UNITED STATES
CURRENCY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

JULIO FIGUEROA,

17

Claimant.

18

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

Case No. C 14-0780 SC
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS 59 AND 62
AND SCHEDULING ORDER

19
20

Now before the Court is Claimant's so-styled administrative

21

motion to strike the United States' motion to strike Claimant's

22

claim.

23

motion to strike for failing to comply with the local rules,

24

Claimant's counsel failed to comply with the local rules.

25

L.R. 7-11 (defining the circumstances in which an administrative

26

motion is appropriate).

27

filed and decided as an administrative motion.

28

Claimant's motion to strike the Government's motion to strike is

ECF No. 67 ("Mot.").

Ironically, in seeking to strike the

See Civ.

A motion to strike is not appropriately
Accordingly

1
2

STRICKEN.
Nonetheless, Claimant has a point.

The Government's initial

3

motion to strike arguably suffers from the same defect the Court

4

pointed out with the Government's earlier attempted cross-motion

5

for summary judgment.

6

(discussing the failure to notice a permissible hearing date under

7

the local rules).

8

a hearing date and time "in one filed document . . . ."

9

7-2(a) (emphasis added).

See ECF No. 49 ("Cross-Motion Order")

The Local Rules require a moving party to notice
Civ. L.R.

The fact that the undersigned's courtroom

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

deputy was unavailable on the date the Government's counsel chose

11

to file the motion to strike does not exempt the Government's

12

counsel from this requirement.

13

(apparently uncontroverted) suggestion that in filing the motion to

14

strike the Government did not first meet and confer with opposing

15

counsel regarding the issues raised in the motion as required under

16

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1).

17

notice and accompanying supplemental answers recently filed by

18

Claimant, it appears such a meet-and-confer would have been

19

productive and spared the Court both the instant motion and perhaps

20

the Government's motion to strike.

21

this aside, the Court does not believe that striking the

22

Government's motion to strike is the best course of action.

23

Instead, the Court merely notes its disapproval of the

More troubling still is the

Mot. at 2.

See ECF No. 68-1.

Given the

Setting

24

increasing gamesmanship in this case.

The Court's prior

25

admonishment that it would strike portions of future filings that

26

did not comply with the local rules was an attempt to encourage

27

order and civility in this case -- not to encourage the parties to

28

file motions like this.

See Cross-Motion Order at 3 n.1.

2

Counsel

1

for both sides are experienced lawyers with extensive experience

2

handling asset forfeiture cases and practicing in this judicial

3

district (and opposite one another).

4

not doubt counsels' good faith, but hopes that the parties will

5

heed the applicable procedural rules going forward.

At this point, the Court does

In light of the presently tangled procedural posture and the

6
7

potential confusion on applicable deadlines, the Court hereby

8

ORDERS the following:

9



The hearing on the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

currently scheduled for this Friday, August 8 at 10:00 AM is

11

VACATED.

12



Claimant shall file a supplemental brief of no more than five

13

(5) pages limited to arguments in opposition to the

14

Government's Motion for Summary Judgment based on their newly

15

served Amended Supplemental Verified Response to United

16

States' Special Interrogatories, ECF No. 68-1, within nine (9)

17

days of the signature date of this order, on Friday, August

18

15, 2014.

19



The Government shall file a supplemental brief of no more than

20

five (5) pages limited to arguments responsive to those raised

21

in Claimant's supplemental brief on the newly served Amended

22

Supplemental Verified Response to United States' Special

23

Interrogatories, ECF No. 68-1, seven (7) days later, on

24

Friday, August 22, 2014.

25



Once the Government files its supplemental brief, the Motion

26

for Summary Judgment will be taken under submission and no

27

argument will be held unless otherwise ordered.

28

7-1(b).

3

See Civ. L.R.

1



Claimant shall file his response to the Government's Motion to

2

Strike within seven (7) days of the signature date of this

3

order, on Wednesday, August 13, 2014.

4



to Strike seven (7) days later, on Wednesday, August 20, 2014.

5
6
7

The Government's shall file its reply in support of the Motion



The Motion to Strike will be heard as currently scheduled, on
Friday, September 5, 2014 at 10:00 AM.

8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated: August 6, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

4