Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01341/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01341-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1341-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERSIZED

REPLY BRIEF; AND

ORDER REQUIRING NOTIFICATION

OF STATUS OF CHARGES

vs.

$20,000 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

Claimant Thomas Yankle filed a motion for summary judgment and an amended

motion to suppress evidence. In opposition to the amended motion to suppress, the

government filed an over-length opposition brief. Yankle now seeks leave to file an overlength reply brief to address all the issues raised in the opposition.

This is not the first time the Court has had to deal with over-length briefing in this case.

Earlier, the Court denied Yankle leave to file a substantially over-length reply to the

government's opposition to his motion to suppress. (See Docket no. 38.) The parties have

overestimated the complexity of this case, and have underestimated the Court's competence

to understand the issues. The issues are not nearly as complex or difficult to understand as

the parties think.

The Court has reviewed the government's opposition brief. It is unnecessarily lengthy. 

For example, a great deal of the brief is taken up with reciting the case history or facts that

are not in dispute, and that are also covered in the motion for summary judgment. It also

- 1 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 48 Filed 08/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

provides thorough explanations of simple concepts. By way of example, over a full page is

devoted to explaining how an inspector had a hard time telling whether an illegibly-written

return address was for "Stank Properties" or "Stark Properties," and how this made it difficult

to find out if the business was real or a front. Both parties have also spent undue effort

briefing supposedly disputed issues that are either settled law or that do not alter the

outcome. 

The Court can discern the difference between a substantial argument and one that

is merely lengthy, and between material and immaterial facts. Counsel should be able to do

the same. The Court has previously admonished both counsel to avoid needlessly expending

time and effort on insignificant aspects of a dispute, see United States v. $28,000 in U.S.

Currency, 2013 WL 525648, at *4 (S.D. Cal., Feb. 11, 2013), and now reminds them of that

admonition.

The application to file an oversized brief is DENIED. Yankle may file his reply brief,

as permitted by local rules, by August 10, 2015. The hearing currently on calendar for

August 17, 2015 at 11:15 a.m. will remain on calendar, and the parties should not assume

it will be vacated.

The Court notes that charges were filed against Yankle in state court. Yankle's

counsel must, no later than August 11, 2015, file a notice telling the Court of any criminal

charges brought against Yankle that are connected in any way with either of the warrants he

challenges. A copy of the dockets in any such cases against him must be attached to the

notice. The notice must state whether the validity of the state-issued warrant was ever

litigated in those cases. And it must say whether, as the result of any disposition or outcome

of any criminal charges against him, Yankle waived his right to claim the Defendant currency

or contest its forfeiture.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 5, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 48 Filed 08/07/15 Page 2 of 2