Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00202/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00202-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

KRISTIN S. DOOR, SBN 84307

Assistant United States Attorney

501 I Street, Suite 10-100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: (916)554-2723

Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 2:06-CV-0202-EJG-KJM

)

Plaintiff, ) JOINT STATUS (PRETRIAL

) SCHEDULING)CONFERENCE

v. ) REPORT; REQUEST FOR STAY; 

) AND ORDER THEREON

APPROXIMATELY $57,120.00 IN UNITED )

STATES CURRENCY, ) DATE: November 17, 2006

) TIME: 10:00 a.m.

Defendant. ) COURTROOM: 8

 )

Plaintiff United States of America and claimant Mary Berg 

submit the following Joint Status Report and Request for Stay

pursuant this Court's August 3, 2006, order:

A. Service:

The defendant property has been served and all potential

claimants have been served. In addition, Notice of Arrest and

Seizure has been published in the Daily Recorder. No further

service is contemplated. To date Mary Berg is the only person

who has filed a claim to the property, and who has filed an

Answer to the Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem.

//

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

B. Possible joinder of additional parties:

None.

C. Any expected or desired amendment of pleadings:

None anticipated at this time.

D. Jurisdiction and venue:

This Court's jurisdiction and venue is based on 28 U.S.C. §§

1345 and 1355, and 21 U.S.C. § 881(j).

E. Anticipated motions and suggested dates:

Claimant Mary Berg may file a motion to suppress the

defendant property and other evidence seized from her residence,

business, and vehicles. However, since the parties jointly

request that all discovery be stayed pending the outcome of a

related case (see Section F below) the parties request that

motions not be calendared at this time. 

F. Anticipated and outstanding discovery:

The parties have not yet commenced discovery and request

that all proceedings in this case, including discovery, continue

to be stayed pending the outcome of the prosecution of Louis

Wayne Fowler, (United States v. Louis Wayne Fowler, 2:05-CR-308

EJG). That case is on-going and a further status conference is

scheduled for November 17, 2006, before this Court. 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2) and 21 U.S.C.

§ 881(i) the parties seek a stay of discovery in this case. 

Government's request for a stay:

18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1) provides as follows:

Upon motion of the United States, the court

shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding if

the court determines that civil discovery

will adversely affect the ability of the

Government to conduct a related criminal

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

investigation or the prosecution of a related

criminal case.

The United States contends that the allowing discovery to

proceed in this civil forfeiture case would adversely affect the

prosecution of Louis Wayne Fowler. Claimant intends to depose

local and federal law enforcement officers who were involved in

the investigation that led to Fowler's indictment and to the

seizure of the defendant property. Allowing these depositions 

would adversely affect the ability of the U.S. Attorney's Office

to properly prosecute their case. That discovery would allow

defendant Fowler (Berg's brother) access to witness statements

prior to the time allowed under the criminal rules of discovery

(under 18 U.S.C. § 3500 the defendant is not entitled to witness

statements until after the witness has testified on direct

examination at trial).

Claimant's request for a stay:

18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(2) provides as follows:

Upon the motion of a claimant, the court

shall stay the civil forfeiture proceeding

with respect to that claimant if the court

determines that–

(A) the claimant is the subject of

a related criminal investigation or

case;

(B) the claimant has standing to

assert a claim in the civil

forfeiture proceeding;

(C) continuation of the forfeiture

proceeding will burden the right of

the claimant against selfincrimination in the related

investigation or case. 

In this case, the defendant currency was seized from

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

claimant Mary Berg's residence during an investigation of

Alternative Specialties, a so-called medical marijuana co-op. 

She thus has standing to assert a claim in this civil forfeiture

action. And while claimant Berg has not been indicted in

connection with the medical marijuana co-op, the U.S. Attorney's

Office has not advised her that she will not be indicted. 

Thus, the parties recognize that proceeding with this action

at this time has potential adverse affects on the prosecution of

the related-criminal case and/or upon claimant's ability to prove

her claim that the defendant currency belongs to her, and that it

came from a legitimate source. For these reasons, the parties

jointly request that this matter be stayed again until the

conclusion of the criminal case currently pending in federal

court against Louis Wayne Fowler.

Once the stay is lifted, the parties intend to conduct the

following discovery:

By plaintiff:

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery focused on whether

claimant had any legitimate source of income and on defeating the

Affirmative Defenses raised in claimant's Answer. Plaintiff

contends the defendant currency is the proceeds of drug

trafficking.

By claimant:

Claimant Mary Berg intends to serve written discovery on the

plaintiff and depose law enforcement officers involved in the

investigation that led to the seizure of the defendant property

and the indictment of Louis Wayne Fowler, (United States v. Louis

Wayne Fowler, 2:05-CR-308 EJG). 

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This includes, for example, a law enforcement officer who forms opinions based 1

on his/her training and experience during the course of his investigation, or a chemist employed

by a local, state, or federal law enforcement agency who analyzes controlled substances. 

5

G. Proposed discovery plan:

(1) What changes should be made in the timing,

form, or requirement for disclosures under

Rule 26(a), including a statement as to when

disclosures under subdivision (a)(1) were

made or will be made:

The parties stipulate that Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures are not

appropriate in a civil forfeiture action and request that they

not be required to make Initial Disclosures required by this

rule.

In addition, with respect to non-retained expert witnesses

only, the parties stipulate that for purposes of Rule 26(a)(2) 1

requiring the production of a written report, the reports created

by the various law enforcement officers, fingerprint experts,

chemists, etc. during the course of their criminal investigation

will satisfy all the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requirements. 

If either party retains or specially employs an individual

to provide expert testimony, that party will identify the expert

and produce a report that complies with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). 

(2) The subjects on which discovery may be

needed, when discovery should be completed,

and whether discovery should be conducted in

phases or be limited to or focused upon

particular issues: 

See Section F above.

(3) What changes should be made in the

limitations on discovery imposed under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of the Local

Rules, and what other limitations should be

imposed:

Once the requested stay is lifted, the parties anticipate

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

staying within the following limitations, but if additional

discovery is needed, will attempt to stipulate to additional

discovery, with the approval of the court. Neither party waives

any rights they may have to seek additional discovery or a

protective order:

(a) Depositions (including experts) by:

Plaintiffs: 10

Defendant: 10

(b) Interrogatories served by:

Plaintiffs: 25

Defendant: 25 

(c) Requests for Production of Documents served by:

Plaintiffs: 25

Defendant: 25

(d) Requests for Admissions served by:

Plaintiffs: 25

Defendant: 25.

H. Scheduling of future proceedings, including

suggested timing of the disclosure of expert

witnesses and information required by Rule

26(a)(2), completion dates for discovery and

law and motion, and dates for final pretrial

conference and trial:

As noted below, the parties request a stay of all further

proceedings pending the outcome of the Fowler prosecution.

I. Estimate of trial time:

Four days. 

//

//

J. Appropriateness of special procedures:

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Not applicable.

K. Modification of standard pretrial procedures

because of the relative simplicity or

complexity of the action or proceedings:

Not applicable.

L. Whether the case is related to any other

case, including any matters in bankruptcy:

This civil forfeiture is related to the Fowler case because

the seizure of the defendant currency was made during the

execution of multiple search warrants issued in the same

investigation. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Cases on

July 31, 2006, and the criminal case and the civil forfeiture

action are now assigned to this Court.

M. Prospects for settlement:

The parties are unable to assess the likelihood of

settlement at this time.

 N. Any other matters that may add to the just

and expeditious disposition of this matter:

None.

Dated: November 7, 2006 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ Kristin S. Door 

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Dated: November 7, 2006 /s/ Michael B. Bigelow 

MICHAEL B. BIGELOW

Attorney for claimant

Mary Berg

ORDER

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2) and 21 U.S.C. 

§ 881(i) until the related criminal case currently pending in

federal court is resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2006

_____/s/ Edward J. Garcia 

EDWARD J. GARCIA

U.S. District Judge

United States District Court

Case 2:06-cv-00202-EJG-EFB Document 19 Filed 11/13/06 Page 8 of 8