Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499-6/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

 Counsel’s affidavit was not properly filed in text-searchable format contrary to

LRCiv 7.1(c), and the definition of “.pdf,” in the District Court’s ECF Manual, at I(A), p.

2.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$93,110.00 in U.S. Currency, 

Defendant. 

Elsa Bernal,

 Claimant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-08-1499-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on the Court’s review of Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition

To Motion In Limine, filed on December 19, 2011. (Doc. 58)

Plaintiff’s Response substantially exceeds the District Court’s page limitation of

seventeen (17) pages set forth in LRCiv 7.2(e) and violates three prior court orders to comply

with the District Court’s Local Rules. (Docs. 3 at 3; 13 at 1-2; 14 at 1-2)

To ensure that it is not falsely accused of manipulating the record, the Court will

direct the Clerk of Court to retain as a part of the record attorney Reid C. Pixler’s outrageous,

self-serving affidavit, doc. 58-1 at 2-221

, replete with its inaccurate and blatantly false

representations, attacking the personal integrity, character, and impartiality of the

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 59 Filed 12/28/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

undersigned Magistrate Judge. While Plaintiff’s motivation to recuse the assigned Judge is

clear to mitigate counsel’s apparent mismanagement of his client’s expert disclosures

required by the June 11, 2009 scheduling order and Rule 26, Fed.R.Civ.P., the undersigned

will not lessen the dignity of the District Court by responding to the false contents of

counsel’s affidavit except as follows. 

At no time in this civil forfeiture case has either counsel requested the presence of a

court reporter for several in-chamber’s scheduling conferences wherein the parties are

represented by counsel and Claimant’s Tucson counsel usually appeared by telephone. 

Glaringly absent from Mr. Pixler’s affidavit is a discussion of the Court Reporters Act,

28 U.S.C. § 753(b), and the authorities authorizing non-recorded lawyer conferences. Every

circuit court addressing the issue, including the Ninth Circuit, has concluded that lawyer

conferences in chambers with the court are not in “open court” and their recording is left to

the discretion of the court except when requested by a party. United States v. Hein, 769 F.2d

609, 611 (9th Cir. 1985) (a “[p]retrial chambers conference does not fit within the ‘open

court’ recording requirements of section 753, and the district court did not abuse its

discretion under the Act in failing to record the conference when there was no request that

it be recorded. . . .”); United States v. Amico, 486 F.3d 764, 778 (2nd Cir. 2007) (“[I]t is well

settled in other circuits that conferences in chambers are not in “open court” and their

recording is left by § 753(b) to the discretion of the district court except when requested by

a party. . . .”); Von Kahl v. United States, 242 F.3d 783, 792 (8th Cir. 2001) (“As an initial

matter, we disagree with Kahl that the in-chambers discussion was required to be transcribed

under 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). Recording of criminal proceedings not held in open court is left

by § 753 to the discretion of the district court. . . .”); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 833 (4th Cir.

1987) (“Section 753 does not mandate the recording of all phases of a civil proceeding before

the district court. Only those proceedings conducted in open court must be recorded unless

the parties agree otherwise. The court may order other proceedings recorded if a party so

requests. Proceedings held in chambers need not be stenographically recorded. . . .”); United

States v. Jenkins, 442 F.2d 429, 438 (5th Cir. 1971).

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 59 Filed 12/28/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

All further proceedings in this case will be held in open court on the record.

On the Court’s own motion,

IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to LRCiv 83.1(f)(2)(E) and the Court’s inherent

authority, Plaintiff’s Response, doc. 58, to Claimant’s Motion In Limine Regarding Expert

Testimony and Expert Report is hereby STRICKEN without prejudice. The Clerk of Court,

however, is kindly directed to retain as a part of the record attorney Reid C. Pixler’s affidavit,

doc. 58-1 at 2-22. Plaintiff may re-file its response in opposition to Claimant’s Motion In

Limine, provided it is re-filed on or before Monday, January 9, 2012 and shall comply in

all aspects with the District Court’s Local Rules. Further violations of the District Court’s

Local Rules or prior court orders by Plaintiff’s counsel may result in the imposition of

sanctions.

Dated this 28th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 59 Filed 12/28/11 Page 3 of 3