United States of America v. $209,960.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 16

ORDER granting 13 Motion to compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson on 6/2/2011. (BEE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:10-cv-1117-J-25MCR

$209,960.00 in U.S. Currency,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Compel (Doc.
13) filed May 5, 2011. Claimant Julio Cesar’s response to this Motion was due May 31,
2011. To date, no response has been filed.1 Accordingly, the Court will treat the Motion
as though it was unopposed.2
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, the United States of America, instituted the instant in rem civil forfeiture

action on December 7, 2010. (Doc. 1). On January 20, 2011, Claimant filed a Claim.
(Doc. 8). On March 18, 2011, Plaintiff sent Claimant its First Request for Admissions,
Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents. On April 15, 2011,

1

On June 1, 2011, Claimant’s counsel sent the undersigned a letter. This is an improper
form of communication and will be returned.
2

Claimant’s initial response to Plaintiff’s Motion was due on May 23, 2011. When Claimant
failed to file a response by that time, the Court entered an Order directing Claimant to file his
response no later than May 31, 2011. (Docs. 14, 15). Claimant was cautioned that failure to file
a response would result in the Court treating the Motion to Compel as being unopposed. (Id.).
-1-

Claimant responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, but failed to respond to
Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. As such, Plaintiff
requests the Court to enter an Order compelling Claimant to respond to the discovery
requests.
II.

ANALYSIS
The overall purpose of discovery under the Federal Rules is to require the

disclosure of all relevant information so that the ultimate resolution of disputed issues in
any civil action may be based on a full and accurate understanding of the true facts.
See United States v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 682, 78 S.Ct. 983, 986-87
(1958). Discovery is intended to operate with minimal judicial supervision unless a
dispute arises and one of the parties files a motion requiring judicial intervention.
Furthermore, “[d]iscovery in this district should be practiced with a spirit of cooperation
and civility.” Middle District Discovery (2001) at 1.3
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b) and 34 clearly sets forth the substantive
and procedural requirements for propounding and responding to interrogatories and
requests for production of documents. Rule 37(a) expressly authorizes an aggrieved
party to request an order compelling the production of discovery that has not been
forthcoming. Here, Claimant has failed to fully respond to the government’s discovery
requests. Claimant has not raise any objections to the discovery requests in this case,

3

Motions to compel disclosures and other discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a) are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Commercial Union Insurance Co. v.
Westrope, 730 F.2d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1984). The trial court's exercise of discretion regarding
discovery orders will be sustained absent a finding of abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of
a party. See Westrope, 730 F.2d at 731.
-2-

and the discovery requested is clearly relevant to the issues in the instant action.
Accordingly, the Court directs Claimant to provide responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents no later than Monday, June 13, 2011.4
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after due consideration, it is
ORDERED:
The United States’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 13) is GRANTED as provided in the

body of this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida this 2nd day of
June, 2011.

MONTE C. RICHARDSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Any Unrepresented Party

4

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions, including
striking Claimant’s claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A); Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359,
361 (11th Cir. 1987).
-3-