United States of America v. $60,982.94 Seized From Two Chicagoland Motorsports Group, Inc. Financial Accounts

Filing 24

ORDER granting 21 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on 4/5/2018. (SMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:17-cv-2267-T-30JSS

$60,982.94 SEIZED FROM TWO
CHICAGOLAND MOTORSPORTS
GROUP, INC. FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States’ Motion to Compel (“Motion”).
(Dkt. 21.) Upon consideration and for the reasons explained below, the Motion is granted.
BACKGROUND
On September 28, 2017, the Government filed its Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem
for $42,118.13 seized from MB Financial Bank, N.A. and $18,864.81 seized from Beverly Bank
and Trust, N.A. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C). (Dkt. 1.) On December 12, 2017, Claimant
Chicagoland Motorsports Group, Inc. (“Chicagoland”) filed its Amended Verified Claim for
Seized Property for the $60,982.94 seized funds. (Dkt. 17.) On December 14, 2017, the
Government served its First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First
Requests for Admission on Chicagoland. (Dkt. 21-1.) On January 22, 2018, the Government
contacted counsel for Chicagoland to inquire as to the overdue discovery responses. (Dkt. 21-2.)
On March 5, 2018, after Chicagoland failed to respond to the discovery requests, the Government
filed its Motion. (Dkt. 21.) Chicagoland’s response to the Motion was due March 19, 2018. When
Chicagoland did not file a response by that date, the Court ordered it to file a response on or before

April 3, 2018 and advised Chicagoland that failure to respond would result in the Court considering
the Motion unopposed. (Dkt. 23.) To date, Chicagoland has failed to file a response to the Motion.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A party is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant
to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The term “relevant” in Rule 26 should encompass “any matter that bears
on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in
the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). A party may move for
an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. An evasive or incomplete
disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). The court has broad discretion in managing pretrial discovery matters and in
deciding to compel. Josendis v. Wall to Wall Residence Repairs, Inc., 662 F.3d 1292, 1306 (11th
Cir. 2011); Perez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 297 F.3d 1255, 1263 (11th Cir. 2002).
ANALYSIS
Despite the Court’s Order directing Chicagoland to respond to the Motion by April 3, 2018,
Chicagoland has failed to file a response. Consequently, the Court presumes Chicagoland has no
objection to the Government’s Motion. See M.D. Fla. Local R. 3.01(b). Further, all litigants are
“subject to the relevant law and rules of court, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,”
regardless of whether the litigant is represented by an attorney. See Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d
835, 837 (11th Cir. 1989). The Eleventh Circuit requires pro se litigants to “conform to procedural

-2-

rules.” Loren v. Sasser, 309 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1. The United States’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED.
2. Chicagoland Motorsports Group, Inc. shall serve its discovery responses and produce
all documents responsive to the Government’s discovery requests in accordance with
this Order within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on April 5, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

-3-