Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01050/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01050-7/pdf.json

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

---

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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

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, ) 2:08-cv-01050 JAM/GGH

 )

Plaintiff, ) STIPULATION TO MODIFY

 ) STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

v. ) ORDER; ORDER

 )

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3115 )

CLAREMONT DRIVE, OROVILLE, ) 

CALIFORNIA, BUTTE COUNTY, )

APN: 079-010-012-0, INCLUDING )

ALL APPURTENANCES AND ) DATE: N/A

IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, ) TIME: N/A

 ) COURTROOM:N/A

 Defendant. )

 )

Plaintiff United States of America and claimants Shirley

Lacey and Barbara Howell respectfully request that Status

(Pretrial Scheduling) Order entered in this case on August 13,

2009, be modified for the reasons set forth below:

1. Claimant Shirley Lacey is currently incarcerated at the

California Institution for Women in Corona, California, in

Riverside County. Her tentative release date is July 14, 2010. 

Lacey was convicted in Butte County on drug charges that led to

the filing of the above-captioned civil forfeiture case. 

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 29 Filed 03/10/10 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

2. On December 2, 2009, plaintiff disclosed its expert

witness and report pursuant to the scheduling order. On December

3, 2009, plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for

production of documents on claimants. However, due to Lacey’s

incarceration in a remote location in Southern California it has

been difficult for her counsel to consult with her to prepare

responses.

3. Plaintiff has not yet scheduled claimants’ depositions

because government counsel has not yet received the discovery

responses.

4. The parties are in agreement that attempting to

complete discovery while Lacey is incarcerated will be unduly

burdensome to all parties, and would be unduly expensive if the

parties have to travel to San Bernadino County for a deposition.

5. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the

scheduling order be modified as shown below:

EVENT CURRENT DATE NEW DATE

Discovery cutoff April 15, 2010 October 15, 2010

File dispositive

motions

May 19, 2010 November 19, 2010

Hearing on

dispositive motions

June 16, 2010 January 12, 2011 at

9:30 a.m.

File mid-litigation

statements

April 1, 2010 October 1, 2010

Final Pretrial

conference

August 6, 2010 March 18, 2011 at

3:00 P.M.

Trial September 20, 2010 April 25, 2011 at

9:00 a.m.

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 29 Filed 03/10/10 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

Date: March 9, 2010 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER

United States Attorney

By /s/ Kristin S. Door

KRISTIN S. DOOR

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for plaintiff

United States of America

Date: March 9, 2010 /s/ John Balazs (as authorized

on March 8, 2010)

JOHN BALAZS

Attorney for claimant

Shirley Lacey

Date: March 9, 2010 /s/ Bruce Locke (as authorized

on March 8, 2010)

BRUCE LOCKE 

Attorney for claimant

Barbara Howell

ORDER

Good cause having been shown, the Status (Pre-trial

Scheduling) Order entered on August 13, 2009, is modified as set

forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ John A. Mendez

JOHN A. MENDEZ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUDGE

Dated: March 9, 2010

Case 2:08-cv-01050-JAM -GGH Document 29 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3