Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00418-2/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, ) Civ. S-05-0418 MCE KJM

)

Plaintiff, ) EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

) MODIFY PRETRIAL (STATUS)

v. ) SCHEDULING ORDER

) AND ORDER 

2002 CADILLAC ESCALADE, VIN: )

1GYEK63N52R122808, CALIFORNIA ) 

LICENSE 4UHN183, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

___________________________________)

Plaintiff United States of America submits this ex parte

application to modify the June 20, 2005, Pretrial (Status)

Scheduling Order. Plaintiff only requests an extension of the

discovery cut-off from September 23, 2005 to October 23, 2005. 

Good cause for the requested modification is set forth below. 

1. Plaintiff made the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(a)(1).

2. Claimant Victoria Velazquez never made any Rule 26

disclosures. 

3. Plaintiff served interrogatories and a request for

production of documents on claimant on June 28, 2005.

4. Claimant has not responded to the discovery requests.

Case 2:05-cv-00418-MCE -KJM Document 15 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 4
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

5. On July 29, 2005, Plaintiff noticed claimant's

deposition for September 13, 2005. 

6. Plaintiff sent two letters to claimant's counsel

reminding him that claimant's Rule 26 disclosures and discovery

responses were overdue, but received no response. Accordingly,

on August 23, 2005 plaintiff filed a "Motion to Exclude Evidence

and Witnesses Not Previously Disclosed Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26

and Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Response to

Request for Production of Documents." The hearing was scheduled

for September 14, 2005. 

7. Plaintiff re-noticed claimant's deposition for

September 20, 2005, a date after the scheduled hearing on the

discovery motion.

8. At the September 14, 2005, hearing on plaintiff's

motion, plaintiff requested that claimants be ordered to answer

the interrogatories, and produce the requested documents, no

later than 5 p.m. on September 19. Plaintiff requested the

September 19, 2005 deadline so there would be time to review the

documents before claimant's deposition scheduled for the

following day.

9. The Magistrate Judge denied plaintiff's request for a

September 19 response date, and denied the request for a sanction

for failing to make the Rule 26 disclosures, and entered an order

giving claimant until September 28, 2005, to make her Rule 26

disclosures and to respond to the outstanding discovery.

10. Based on the Magistrate Judge's order, plaintiff has

re-noticed claimant's deposition for October 7, 2005.

11. Plaintiff did not object to the September 28 disclosure

Case 2:05-cv-00418-MCE -KJM Document 15 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 4
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

date erroneously believing, as did the Magistrate Judge, that the

discovery cut-off was several months away. Plaintiff realized

after the hearing that the existing Pretrial (Status) Scheduling

Conference Order requires all discovery to be completed by

September 23, 2005. Trial is not scheduled until June 21, 2006.

12. Plaintiff requests that the discovery deadline be

extended to October 23, 2005, to give claimant time to make her

Rule 26 disclosures and to respond to the outstanding discovery,

and to permit plaintiff to depose her. 

13. Plaintiff has been diligent in conducting discovery.

14. Granting plaintiff an extension of time to depose the

claimant will not affect any other dates in the scheduling order.

15. Undersigned counsel attempted to contact claimant's

attorney, Victor Haltom, today, September 15, 2005, to seek his

agreement to this request, but was unable to reach him. 

Respectfully submitted, 

DATED: September 15, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/ kdoor 

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:05-cv-00418-MCE -KJM Document 15 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, the deadline for completion of

discovery shall be extended to October 23, 2005. All other dates

in the June 20, 2005, Status (Pretrial Scheduling) remain the

same. 

_______________________________

DATED: September 20, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00418-MCE -KJM Document 15 Filed 09/20/05 Page 4 of 4