United States of America v. $16,836.00 in United States Currency
AMENDED ORDER FOR PROGRESSION OF CIVIL FORFEITURE CASE - This case is before the court on the Consent Motion to Continue the ProgressionOrder (# 14 ). The motion will be granted and deadlines extended as set out herein. Mediation status report letters due 9/3/2015; counsel and any pro se parties shall submit a proposed final pretrial conference order by 12/4/2015. Case Management Deadline set for 12/4/2015. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (TCL )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
$16,836.00 IN UNITED STATES
Adam J. Janson,
Case No. 8:14cv323
AMENDED ORDER FOR
CIVIL FORFEITURE CASE
This case is before the court on the Consent Motion to Continue the Progression
Order (#14). The motion will be granted and deadlines extended as set out herein.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties ("parties" includes claimants) shall abide by the
1. Authorization and Sequence of Discovery. The parties may now commence
discovery. That discovery required to prepare the case for mediation or other settlement
negotiations and that discovery required to prepare the case for possible summary
judgment disposition shall be conducted before other discovery.
2. Mediation. If mediation has not heretofore been conducted, counsel shall
immediately advise the parties that the court expects them to mediate their dispute if they
have not already done so, and may order them to participate in settlement discussions, in
the presence of the judge if appropriate. Counsel shall notify the undersigned magistrate
judge by joint or separate letters by September 3, 2015, addressing the following:
That they have advised their clients of the court's expectations respecting
That they have hired a mediator and the name of the mediator hired;
The date of their scheduled mediation;
Their joint, or if necessary, separate views on whether the progression of the
case should be stayed pending the outcome of their mediation;
If no mediator has been hired by that time, counsel's estimate of when a
mediator can be hired and a mediation held;
If a mediation previously has been held, the identity of the mediator, the date
of the mediation, and their views as to whether another mediation at this time
might be successful in resolving the dispute; and
Whether the parties object to mediation and if so, what the objections are; and
If the parties have not discussed mediation, what settlement efforts have been
undertaken and what actions are planned for the future, together with the
timing of such anticipated actions.
Counsel are reminded that if parties do not have the funds immediately available to pay a
mediator's fees, the court's Plan for Administration of the Federal Practice Fund and the
Mediation Plan (both available at www.ned.uscourts.gov) make the Federal Practice Fund
available to advance such fees; if the case ends with any payment of money to that party,
the Federal Practice Fund must be reimbursed.
3. Mandatory Disclosures . Although this is an action in rem, the parties shall
serve the disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(I) and (ii) by August 3, 2015.
The parties shall serve the disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) by
September 3, 2015. The parties shall serve the disclosures described in Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(3) by October 4, 2015.
4. The filing of disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), and (2), as well as the
filing of discovery documents, depositions, and disclosures required by this order shall be
governed by NECivR 26.1. The disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) shall be
filed when served. Note: Disclosures that are filed should be redacted so no personal
information (e.g., home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, etc.) is made
part of the public record.
5. Withholding Documents from Disclosure or Discovery. If any document is
withheld from production or disclosure on the grounds of privilege or work product, the
producing party shall disclose the following information about each such document
withheld: a description of the document withheld with as much specificity as is practicable
without disclosing its contents, including (a) the general nature of the document; (b) the
identity and position of its author; (c) the date it was written; (d) the identity and position of
its addressee; (e) the identities and positions of all persons who were given or have
received copies of it and the dates copies were received by them; (f) the document's
present location and the identity and position of its custodian; and (g) the specific reason
or reasons why it has been withheld from production or disclosure.
6. Limits on Discovery. Each party is limited to serving twenty-five (25)
interrogatories on any other party. The plaintiffs as a group, and the defendants as a
group, are each limited to taking ten (10) depositions in this case, without leave of court.
7. Motions for Summary Judgment. All motions to dismiss or for summary
judgment shall be filed not later than September 3, 2015. See NECivR 56.1 and 7.1.
8. Adding Parties; Amending Pleadings. Any motion to amend pleadings and/or
add parties shall be filed not later than August 3, 2015.
9. In lieu of a final pretrial conference, counsel and any pro se parties shall
prepare a proposed final pretrial conference order in accordance with NECivR 16.2 and
submit it to the undersigned magistrate judge by December 4, 2015. In the event the court
requires additional information or a conference with counsel and any pro se parties, the
court will arrange a telephone conference after receipt of the proposed final pretrial
10. Trial is tentatively set for the month of January 2016, and is tentatively
scheduled for two (2) trial days.
11. Motions to alter dates. All requests for changes of deadlines established by
this order shall be directed to the magistrate judge by appropriate motion.
DATED: May 6, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ F.A. Gossett, III
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?