United States of America v. $3,735.00 in U. S. Currency et al

Filing 25

ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and granting 21 Motion to Compel. Claimants are hereby ORDERED to serve their responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories and document requests no later than January 26, 201 6. Claimants are each cautioned that a failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions, which may include striking Claimant's claim and answer, pursuant to Rule 37. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 1/5/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:15-CV-106-F
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

v.
$3,735.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY and
$13,700.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the motions of Plaintiff United States of America

t

("Plaintiff') to compel responses to its first set of discovery requests [DE-21] and

extend the

period of discovery in this matter [DE-23]. The time for filing a response has expired and,
accordingly, the motions are ripe for review. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff,s motions are
allowed.
BACKGROUND
On March 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed its complaint in this matter in rem seeking the forfeiture
ofUnited States Currency in the amounts of$3,735.00 and $13,700.00 ("Defendants') pursuant to
21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). [DE-l] 1M\ I, 3. Plaintiff alleges Defendants were used, or i.tended to be
used, in exchange for controlled substances, or represent proceeds of trafficking/. in controlled
substances, or were used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of Title II of the Controlled
.

I

.

Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., and are therefore subject to forfeiture to Plaintiff pursuant
to 21 U.S. C. § 881 (a)(6).

!d. , 7. Plaintiff alleges the potential claimants in this actit are Anthony

Donte Mann, Earl Green and Vemell Turner Mann. Id. -u 5. On May 7, 2015, tlulough counsel,

Claimant Vemell Turner Mann ("Claimant Mann") filed a claim for the seized $3,375.00 in U.S.
Currency, and a combined answer and motion to dismiss. [DE-9, -I 0]. Claimant

M1

asserts that

the $3,735.00, which he obtained legally, is not subject to seizure or forfeiture and was unlawfully
seized Id On May 7, 2015, through counsel; Claimant Earl Thomas Green ("Clai1ant Green")
filed a clmm for the seized $13,700.00 m U.S. Currency, and a combmed answer and motwn to

not subject to seizure or forfeiture and was unlawfully seized. Id On June 24, 20 5, the court

r

denied Claimants' motions to dismiss without prejudice for failure to comply with a directive of the
Clerk of Court infomring counsel of a deficiency regarding the motions to dismiss.

E-17].

On August 20, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order setting forth the following relevant
.

I

case deadlines: (I) ~ discovery to be completed by November I, 2015; (2) all potentialty dispositive .
motions to be filed by December I, 2015; and (3) the trial of this matter to be sched~led for Judge
Fox's March 28, 2016 term of court in Wilmington, North Caro!ina. [DE-20].

·1

On October 28, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Claimants Mann and Green to
respond to its written discovery requests [DE-21] and a motion to extend the

timl

to complete

discovery in this matter. [DE-23]. Neither Claimant has filed a response to PlaiJiffs motion.
According to its motion to compel, Plaintiff served Claimants Mann and Green eac ) with a set of
interrogatories and requests for documents on August 24, 2015. Exs. A-D [DE-22-1

ough 22-4].

These written discovery requests seek information about each Claimant's criminal "story, sources
of income, employnient history, assets, fmancial institutions, liabilities, and other info

ation related

to each Claimant's contention that the monies seized were legitimate funds, not illegal/drug proceeds
and therefore were not subject to seizure. Id Claimants Mann and Green each failed to respond to

2

Plaintiffs interrogatories and requests for documents. Plaintiff contends that Claimant/' responses.
to its written discovery requests are needed in order for Plaintiff to conduct effective d~ositions of
Claimants and to further litigate this matter. Plaintiff contends further that Claimalts' delay in
responding to the discovery bas allowed the discovery deadline in tbis matter to llapse while
· discovery remains incomplete. Neither Claimant has moved to extend the time in wbil to respond
to Plaintiff's discovery requests nor bas either sought any other relief from the col relative to
discovery.
Plaintiff requests that the court compel full and complete responses to the intergatory and
document requests within 20 days and that failing compliance by a certain date,

stri~~

Claimants'

claims. In addition, Plaintiff requests that the court extend the discovery period for 0 days.

ANALYSIS
A.

Applicable Legal Standards

r

The Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure enable parties to obtain information by serng requests
for discovery upon each other, including interrogatories and requests for production

documents.

See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37. Rule 37 allows for the filing of a motion to compel where a
party fails to respond to written discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
Rule 26 provides for a broad scope of discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is rele . ~t to
1
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering
the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controver~y, the
parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the impo ance
of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this sc pe of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
1

Fed. R. Civ. P: 26(b)(l). The rules of discovery, including Rule 26, are to be given broad and liberal

3

construction. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979); Nemecek v.. Bd ofGo(rnors; No.
2:98-CV--62-BO, 2000 WL 33672978, at *4 (E,D.N.C. Sept 27, 2000) (W1publishe1)·
While Rule 26 does not define what is deemed relevant for purposes of the ,e, relevance
has been "broadly construed to encompass any possibility that the information sought may be

I

relevant to the claim or defense of any party." Equal Emp 't Opportunity Comm 'n v. 'hejjield Fin.

LLC, No. 1:06CV889, 2007 WL 1726560, at *3 (M.D.N.C. June 13, 2007) (unpublis ed) (internal
quotation marks, alterations and citations omitted); see also Mainstreet Collec ion, Inc. v.

Kirkland's, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 238, 240 (E.D.N.C. 2010) ("During discovery, relevt is broadly
construed 'to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to

oth~r matter that

could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case."') (quoting OppenheimeJrund., Inc., v.

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,351 (1978)). The district court has broad discretion to dete

"ne relevance

for discovery purposes. Watson v. Lowcountry Red Cross, 974 F.2d 482, 489 (4th Clir. 1992).

B.

Plaintiff's Motions
Claimants Mann and Green have each failed to respond to Plaintiff's in~ogatory and

document requests and have failed to seek an extension oftime within which to do soror has either
sought any protection from the court from having to respond to such discovery. Having failed to
respond to Plaintiffs motion to compel, Claimants do not dispute Plaintiffs contentJns. The court
therefore finds that Claimants have failed to comply with their discovery obligatioL as Plaintiff
contends. See Bazzi v. M'Bai, No. 5:11-CV-353-H, 2013 WL 3818114, at *2 (E.D N.C. July 22,
2013) (unpublished); United States v. $11,609.00 in US. Currency, No. 4:10-CV-93-F, 2011 WL
4965023, at *I (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished); United States v. $IJ8,100.00 in U.S.

Currency, No. 5:08-CV-566-F, 2011 WL 1675179, at *2 (E.D.N.C. May 3, 2011) (unpublished).
4

The court has reviewed Plaintiffs discovery requests and finds them to b within the
permissible scope of discovery. The court therefore ALLOWS Plaintiffs motioJ compelling
Claimants Mann and Green each to respond to Plaintiffs interrogatories and requests fJ documents.

Subject to valid claims of privilege, as discussed below,

Cl~imants each shall servJ on Plaintiff

by January 26, 2016 complete responses to Plaintiff's interrogatories and lequests for

documents.
Because Claimants failed to respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests in a timel manner, any
objections Claimants may have to the relevance or scope of the discovery are waived See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(4) ("Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the C0urt, for good
cause, excuses the failure."); Bazzi, 2013 WL 3818114, at *3; $118,000.00 in US. cLrency, 2011

· WL 1675179, at *2. Despite Claimants' lack of objection, the court will permit C,ants to assert
any valid claim privilege in their responses to the interrogatories and document production requests.
However, Claimants are cautioned that in order to validly claim a privilege, Cllimants must

expressly assert it in response to the particular discovery request involved and sele with their
discovery responses a privilege log in conformance with Rule 26(b)(S)(A). Fa,ure to timely

serve a duly signed privilege log meeting the requirements of Rule 26(b)(S)(A) shall be deemed
a waiver of the privilege otherwise claimed.
Plaintiff has also requested that the discovery deadline be extended in this case. In light of
Claimants' failure to respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests, amendment to the scteduling order
is warranted. The Court finds good cause to extend the discovery deadline to allow Claimants to
comply with the Court's order and to allow Plaintiff to complete any additional dislvery based on
Claimants' responses. Accordingly, discovery shall be completed no later than MLch 15, 2016,

5

dispositive motions shall be filed no later than April14, 2016, and the trial of this matter shall be
continued to U.S. District Judge James C. Fox's August 1, 2016 term of court.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to compel [DE-21] and ]otion for an
extension of time [DE-23] are ALLOWED. Claimants are hereby ORDERED tol serve their
responses to Plaintiffs interrogatories and document requests no later than Januaey 26, 2016.

Cla~mants are each cautioned that a failure to comply with this order may result i

I

sanctions,

which may include striking Claimant's claim and answer, pursuant to Rule 37. Se $11,609.00

in US. Currency, 2011 WL 4965023, at *2.
So ordered the 5th day of January 2016.

Ro!ff:J#1-.,
United States Magistrate Judge

6