UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. $10,000.00 in U. S. Currency

Filing 26

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 6/4/2013. (Sawyer, D.)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION NO: 5:12-CV-217-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 0 R D E R $10,000.00 IN U. S. CURRENCY, Defendant. On March 22, 2013 the Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses. The claimant was given until April 11, 2013 to fully and completely respond to the plaintiff's discovery requests, which consisted of both interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The claimant was warned by the Court that his claim and answer would be stricken and default entered if the discovery was not answered. No responses to the discovery have been received by the Government. Nor has the claimant responded to this motion. Rule 37(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may apply for an order compelling discovery. As a sanction for failure to comply with a discovery order, Rule 37 (b) (2) (A) (iii) & (vi) provide that the court may dismiss the action or proceeding or render judgment by default against the disobedient party. In addition, Rule 37 (b) (2) (A) (vii) provides that the court may treat the failure to obey a discovery order as contempt of court. As the claimant has both failed to respond to discovery as required by the Court's Order or provide any reason for such failure to respond, in accordance with the above stated rule, it is hereby ORDERED that the verified Claim and Answer filed by the claimant on June 13, 2012 and June 29, 2012, respectively, are stricken as a sanction for his failure to obey the Court's Order. Examination of the Court files and records shows that the defendant currency was served while in the custody of the United States Marshal on May 3, 2012 (Doc. #5). Notice of publication was available on the www.forfeiture.gov web site between May 4, 2012 and June 2, 2 0 12 ( Doc . # 12 ) . Service of plaintiff's Complaint and the Warrant of Arrest In Rem was made on Sekou Mady Sinayoko, potential claimant, via certified mail return-receipt on May 7, 2012. More than 35 days have elapsed since the date on which the in rem defendant and potential claimant were served with the 2 Warrant of Arrest and a copy of the Complaint, excluding the date thereof. No other person has filed a verified claim in this action or answered or plead as required by Rule G(5) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime and Asset Forfeiture Claims and, as the Court has stricken the claimant's claim and answer, there is no responsive pleading. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to enter default against the defendant property, whereupon default judgment may be entered. _____. SO ORDERED this ~ day of _..l~v~n~t~------' 2013. JAME Chie C. District Judge 3

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?