United States of America v. $45,000.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 24

ORDER finding as moot Plaintiff's 14 Motion to Compel and denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on August 14, 2013 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PLAINTIFF
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-181-KS-MTP

$45,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY

DEFENDANT
PROPERTY
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff United States of America’s (the
“Government”) Motion to Compel Claimant Kevin Charles Lawrence’s Responses to
Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production (“Motion to Compel”) [14] and Motion to
Strike Claim and Answer of Potential Claimant Kevin Charles Lawrence Pursuant to
Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset
Forfeiture Actions (“Motion to Strike Claim”) [15]. For the reasons stated below, both
motions will be denied.
Motion to Compel [14]
The Government seeks on order compelling Claimant Kevin Charles Lawrence’s
responses to its First Set of Requests for Production. Mr. Lawrence served his
responses to the subject discovery requests subsequent to the filing of the
Government’s Motion to Compel [14]. (See Notice of Service [17].) The Government
has not voiced any objection to the adequacy of Mr. Lawrence’s discovery responses.
Accordingly, this motion will be denied as moot.
Motion to Strike Claim [15]
The Government seeks to strike Mr. Lawrence’s claim to the $45,000 at issue in

this case pursuant to Rule G(8)(c) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime
Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions (the “Supplemental Rules”). This Rule provides in
pertinent part that the Government may move to strike a claim at any time before trial
due to a claimant’s failure to comply with Rule G(5) or (6). Supp. R. G(8)(c)(i)(A). In
turn, Supplemental Rule G(6) states that a claimant’s responses to the Government’s
special “interrogatories must be served within 21 days after the interrogatories are
served.” Supp. R. G(6)(b). The Government asserts that Mr. Lawrence’s failure to
respond to its First Set of Special Interrogatories necessitates the striking of his claim.
Mr. Lawrence served his responses to the subject interrogatories subsequent to
the filing of the Government’s Motion to Strike Claim [15]. (See Notice of Service [16].)
The Government has not voiced any objection to the adequacy of these responses.
Although the responses were untimely under Rule G(6)(b), they were served prior to the
discovery deadline set in this cause. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that
the Government has not suffered any undue prejudice due to the untimely service of Mr.
Lawrence’s interrogatory responses, and that Mr. Lawrence’s claim should remain
pending. Cf. United States v. Approximately $750,000.00 in U.S. Currency, No. 10 Civ.
6069, 2011 WL 6155687, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2011) (ordering the claimant to
respond to the Government’s special interrogatories, as opposed to striking his claim, in
ruling on the Government’s motion to strike, or in the alternative, to compel responses);
United States v. $12,914.00 in U.S. Currency, 828 F. Supp. 2d 822, 824-25 (D. Md.
2011) (denying a motion to strike answer where there was only minimal delay resulting
from the late filing of the answer and the Government did not allege any prejudice).
Conclusion
-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion
to Compel [14] is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Government’s Motion to
Strike Claim [15] is denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 14th day of August, 2013.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-