United States of America v. 116850 in US Currency

Filing 44

ORDER granting 36 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 02/27/2015.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
United States of America,

C/A No. 3:14-cv-01794-JFA

Plaintiff,
vs.

ORDER

$116,850 in United States Currency,
Defendant In Rem.
On January 20, 2015, Claimant Hung “Byron” Tran filed a Motion to Compel, ECF
No. 36, requesting the Court to compel the Government to amend its discovery responses and
comply with certain requests for production. The Court agrees with Claimant that much of
the information sought is relevant and should be disclosed during the discovery process. As
requested by Claimant, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 36, and
directs the Government to (1) fully answer the following interrogatories and (2) comply with
the following requests for production by March 13, 2015:
-

-

Interrogatory Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The Government should respond to Interrogatory Number 10 and Number
12 by disclosing “the date, time and location” of the course of conduct or
set of criminal offenses that “the United States contends constitutes the
basis” for the allegations in the Complaint.1
The Government should continue to comply with Requests for Production
Numbers 1 and 2.

The Court does not need to address the remaining interrogatories or requests for
production because neither party objected to the discovery request or response, the objection
1

The Government, in its Response in Opposition to Claimant’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 40, specifically
referring to Interrogatory Number 10 states that “the United States need not trace seized property back to a specific
illegal transaction in order to meet its burden of proof at trial; it is enough if the property is traceable to a course of
conduct or set of criminal offenses that are described in the complaint generally.” Therefore, the Court amended
Interrogatory Number 10 and 12 to comply with the Government’s representation of the law.

to the request was withdrawn, the discovery request was duplicative, the discovery request
was addressed by the subpoena issued to the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office, or the
Government’s supplemental response appeared to answer the interrogatory.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 27, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2