UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $14,610.00 US CURRENCY

Filing 34

ORDER granting in part 30 Motion for Reconsideration to the extent that this Court's prior order is clarified consistent with this order. Order granting Government's Second 32 Motion to Compel. Westbrook has 14 days to serve the Government with a complete answer to interrogatory number eight and his signed supplemental discovery response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker on 9/21/2015 (dist made) (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
$14,610.00 UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant.
______________________________________
BRONSON T. WESTBROOK,
Claimant.

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

No. 1:14-cv-01637-JMS-TAB

ORDER
Before the Court is Bronson T. Westbrook’s motion to reconsider the order granting the
Government’s first motion to compel, and the Government’s second motion to compel.
This case has its origin in an automobile accident that resulted in police confiscating
$14,610 from Westbrook’s vehicle. The Government initiated a forfeiture action against the
confiscated funds, which Westbrook disputed. The Government served Westbrook with ten
interrogatories on November 11, 2014, but he failed to make a complete response. The Court
granted the Government’s first motion to compel Westbrook’s response on April 27, 2015. It
appears that Westbrook then made a number of partial responses which ultimately answered nine
of the ten interrogatories. However, Westbrook did not sign his supplemental response dated
May 14, 2015, and still refuses to answer interrogatory number eight. Westbrook’s motion to
reconsider asks the Court to deem his current answers a complete response to the Government’s

interrogatories. The Government counters that the Court should deny this request and grant its
second motion to compel.
As for Westbrook’s motion to reconsider, Westbrook argues that he should not be
required to answer interrogatory number eight because it is beyond the scope of allowable
discovery. Westbrook argues the scope is limited to his identification and relationship to the
disputed funds. But the scope of discovery is broadly defined as any nonprivileged information
that is relevant to a party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Interrogatory number
eight essentially asks for the identity of the two individuals who were in the vehicle with
Westbrook before the disputed funds were confiscated and whether any portion belonged to
those individuals. This information is relevant to Westbrook’s ownership of the disputed funds,
which affects his standing to challenge this forfeiture action. Moreover, standing is a threshold
issue which the Government must address. Interrogatory number eight is relevant to
Westbrook’s claim to the disputed funds and is thus within the scope of allowable discovery.
Westbrook’s motion to reconsider is denied. Westbrook’s response is not complete.
Westbrook’s motion to reconsider also points to a lack of clarity in the Court’s prior
order dated April 27, 2015. The order states that Westbrook failed to respond to the
Government’s motion to dismiss, but Westbrook points out it was actually a motion to compel.
While the Court agrees this clarification is appropriate, it still does not grant Westbrook any
relief. The fact remains that Westbrook has failed to fully respond to the legitimate discovery
the Government needs. Moreover, the subsequent denial of Westbrook’s motion to dismiss was
without prejudice, so he has the option of re-filing that motion.
As for the Government’s second motion to compel, the Government argues that
Westbrook should be ordered to answer interrogatory number eight and sign his supplemental

2

response under oath. As just explained, interrogatory number eight is within the scope of
allowable discovery. The rules require each interrogatory response to be made under oath and
signed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), (5). A party’s pro se status is not a license to disobey the rules
or court orders. Mitchell v. Union Pac. R. Co., 501 F.3d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 2007). Westbrook
has failed to make a complete response to the Government’s ten interrogatories from November
2014. Westbrook must complete his response to the Government’s interrogatories and comply
with the Court’s prior order. The Government’s second motion to compel is granted. Within
fourteen days Westbrook must give a complete answer to interrogatory number eight and sign his
supplemental response under oath.
In summary, Westbrook’s motion to reconsider [Filing No. 30] is granted in part only to
the extent that this Court’s prior order [Filing No. 27] is clarified consistent with this order. The
Government’s second motion to compel is granted. [Filing No. 32.] Westbrook has fourteen
days to serve the Government with a complete answer to interrogatory number eight and his
signed supplemental discovery response.
Date: 9/21/2015
___________________________
Tim A. Baker
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
BRONSON T. WESTBROOK
1334 S. Burlington Drive
Muncie, IN 47302
Debra G. Richards
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]

3