United States of America v. Currency, $100,100.00 in US et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 42 Motion to Strike. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 10/16/2008. (lra)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. $100,100.00 IN UNITED STATES FUNDS, et al., Defendant Property, KELLY BATTLE and MARY BATTLE, Claimants. * * * * * * * * * ORDER Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Responsive Pleadings and for Final Order of Forfeiture (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion CASE NO. 4:07-CV-180(CDL)

at this time but orders claimants to respond to discovery or face future sanctions. DISCUSSION On April 30, 2008, Claimants received Plaintiff's request for production of documents. Claimants have not responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests. (Pl.'s Mem. in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. to Strike

Responsive Pleadings and for Final Order of Forfeiture ¶¶ 9-10 [hereinafter Pl.'s Mem.]; see Exs. 1-2 to Pl.'s Mem.) If a party

fails to respond to discovery requests, a court may impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d)(3), including "striking 1

pleadings in whole or in part[.]"

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(iii).

However, the decision to strike a claim or answer "ought to be a last resort­ordered only if noncompliance with discovery orders is due to willful or bad faith disregard for those orders." United States v.

Certain Real Prop. Located at Route 1, Bryant, Ala., 126 F.3d 1314, 1317 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that district court abused its discretion when it granted plaintiff's motion to strike claimants' claims because no discovery order

compelling claimants to produce the requested discovery was issued by the court); cf. Buchanan v. Bowman, 820 F.2d 359, 361 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding that district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer because defendant failed multiple times to make discovery appearances and disregarded the court's order to compel discovery). Considering the fact that Plaintiff has not filed a motion to compel discovery in this case, the Court is reluctant to strike Claimants' claims and answer at this time. Motion to Strike (Doc. 42) is denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff's However, Claimants are

required to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests within thirty days of today's Order. Claimants are notified that if they fail to

comply with the Court's Order, their responsive pleadings will be stricken.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 16th day of October, 2008. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3