Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499-5/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

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 case arises on a second Status Report and Stipulation for Extension of

Discovery Deadline which the Court construes as a joint motion to extend the Rule 16

deadlines. (Doc. 49) The Government requests another six month extension of the deadlines

for supplementation of discovery and completion of discovery. The Status Report indicates

the significant challenges the Government is experiencing in obtaining formal discovery in

Mexico.

[B]ecause the alleged source of the res is in Mexico, the discovery provided

by claimant must be verified pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty

request (MLAT). The MLAT process is the only procedure which allows the

collection of evidence in Mexico by the United States. That is, no agents of the

United States can conduct any investigation nor collect evidence in the

Republic of Mexico without the direct involvement of representatives of the

Mexican Government, specifically including the representatives of the

Attorney General of Mexico. The MLAT request was required to be sent to the

Office of International Affairs (OIA) in Washington, D.C. The OIA Attorney

assigned to Mexico, prepared the formal request, submitted the draft for

approval through the appropriate offices at OIA, and subsequently made

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 50 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

revisions.

(Id. at 1) 

Plaintiff’s counsel informs the Court that this process required six months

before the MLAT was sent to Mexico and “the delay was related to the complexity of the

request, the volume of similar requests coordinated through the OIA; the staff shortage and

lack of resources of that unit, and heightened level of formality required by a Mutual Legal

Treaty Request.” (Id. at 1-2) Plaintiff’s counsel indicates he has “had no control over the

procedure and could do nothing more to accelerate the process.” (Id. at 2) However, he notes

that on two separate occasions, he “has been assured documents are in the process of being

submitted in response to the MLAT and will be submitted prior to February 18, 2011.” (Id.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P., mandates that the

scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent.” Rule

16(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P. (emphasis added). Rule 16(b)(4)’ s “good cause” standard primarily

considers the diligence of the party seeking the amendment. Williams v. City of Mesa, 2010

WL 2803880, * 1 (D.Ariz. 2010) (citing Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d

604, 607-08 (9th Cir. 1992)). The district court may modify the pretrial schedule “if it cannot

reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension.” Johnson, 975

F.2d at 608. “Good cause” means the scheduling deadlines cannot be met despite party’s

diligence, citing 6A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1522.1 at 231

(2d ed. 1990). Id.

A party demonstrates good cause for modifying a scheduling order by showing

that, despite the exercise of due diligence, “[the scheduling order’s deadlines] cannot

reasonably be met.” Zivkovic v. Southern Calif. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1087 (9th Cir.

2002) (holding that party failed to demonstrate good cause where a continuance was

requested four months after the scheduling order was issued, and plaintiff was not diligent

in complying with the Rule 16 schedule) (citation omitted). If the party seeking a

modification of the scheduling order’s deadlines did not exercise diligence, then the motion

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 50 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

for modification should be denied. Id.; also see, Grissom v. Freeport-McMoran Corp., 2010

WL 342585, * (D.Ariz. 2010) (pro se plaintiff failed to show that she was unable to meet the

expert disclosure deadline through an exercise of reasonable diligence, therefore, motion was

denied).

The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Jenkins, ___ F.3d. ___,

2011 WL 208357 (9th Cir. 2011), a criminal case which also involved a related civil

forfeiture claim, affirmed the district court’s suspension of the statute of limitations in a

forfeiture proceeding to accommodate the MLAT process. The court recognized that the

uncontrollable delay involved in collecting critical evidence through an international treaty

such MLAT is a valid reason for extending deadlines, including a statute of limitations. Id.

at 6-9.

The Court finds that the Government’s counsel has exercised due diligence in

attempting to meet the Rule 16 supplementation and discovery completion deadlines. Good

cause exists to grant a second extension of these deadlines. The discovery in Mexico the

United States seeks is totally dependent on the MLAT process which is the only procedure

which allows the collection of evidence in Mexico by the United States. However, the

Court’s patience in allowing continued delays in the judicial resolution of this civil forfeiture

action is not limitless. This action was filed on August 14, 2008 and will be pending over

three years at the time the new discovery completion deadline expires. The parties are

forewarned that another extension of the scheduling order’s deadlines will not likely be

granted.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion to extend deadlines, doc. 49,

is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 11, 2009 Scheduling Order is

modified as follows only:

1. Except for impeachment evidence, disclosure of all known witnesses,

exhibits and other matters under Rule 26(a)(3), Fed.R.Civ. P. and supplementation of all

discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed.R.Civ. P., shall be made by Friday, July 29, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 50 Filed 01/31/11 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 -

2. Completion of all discovery: Wednesday, August 31, 2011.

Dated this 31st day of January, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 50 Filed 01/31/11 Page 4 of 4