Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01499-4/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 the Government’s Status Report and Motion for Extension

of Discovery Deadline. (docket # 46) The Government requests a six-month extension of

the deadlines for supplementation of discovery and completion of discovery until a response

is received from the Central Authority of Mexico regarding the Mutual Legal Assistance

Treaty (“MLAT”). (Id. at 1) Government’s counsel indicates he has conferred with

Claimant’s counsel who has no objection to the requested extensions. (Id. at 3)

I. Background 

The docket reflects that this civil forfeiture action, which seeks the forfeiture

of approximately $93,110.00, was filed on August 14, 2008, nearly two years ago. (docket

# 1) After the parties consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c), the Government’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was granted on 

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 47 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

November 20, 2008. (docket # 22) On January 13, 2009, Claimant filed her Proportionality

Petition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(g), contending that the forfeiture of the entire res is

unconstitutional as a violation of Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution, contrary to United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) and other

non-controlling authorities, e.g., United States v. $293,316 in U.S. Currency, 349 F.Supp.2d

638 (E.D.N.Y. 2004). (docket # 24) The Government disagrees and seeks forfeiture of the

entire res pursuant to the Bulk Cash Smuggling Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5332, a Congressional

reaction to Bajakajian, relying, in part, on United States v. $273,9696.04 in U.S. Currency,

164 F.3d 462, 466 (9th Cir. 1999). (docket # 25 at 6) 

On May 8, 2009, the Court found that Bajakajian applies to this action and

ordered the parties to engage in meaningful discovery so that an evidentiary hearing could

be conducted to resolve disputed material issues of fact and credibility issues and a

determination made whether forfeiture of the entire res would violate the Eighth

Amendment, and, if so, the amount of the res to be proportionally forfeited. (docket # 29)

At a Rule 16 scheduling conference, mutually-agreeable deadlines were established for,

among others, disclosure of all witnesses, exhibits and other matters under Rule 26(a)(3),

Fed. R. Civ. P.; supplementation of all discovery pursuant to Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., by

Friday, July 9, 2010; and completion of all discovery by August 10, 2010. At the Rule 16

scheduling conference and in the Order itself, the Court made clear that “[t]hese deadlines

are firm and real . . .[and] [c]ontinuances of these deadlines may be granted only upon a

showing of good cause and by leave of the assigned trial judge[,]” citing Janicki Logging Co.

v. Mateer, 42 F.3d 561, 566 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[F]ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 is to be

taken seriously[ ]”). (docket # 32 at 2)

II. Pending Motion

The Government requests an extension of the August 10, 2010 discovery

completion deadline to February 11, 2011, only six months before the 3-year filing

anniversary of this case and well beyond the 18-month trial guideline recommended by

Congress in the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. See, 28 U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B). The

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 47 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Government’s counsel outlines the “significant challenges” the United States is

encountering to obtain formal discovery in the Republic Mexico. 

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

by claimant must be verified pursuant to a [MLAT] request[ ]. The MLAT

process is the only procedure which allows the collection of evidence in

Mexico by the United States. The MLAT request must be sent to the Office

of International Affairs (OIA) in Washington, D.C. which, through the OIA

Attorney assigned to Mexico, prepares the formal request and forwards it to

Mexico. Plaintiff has no control over the procedure and it is unknown how

long the process will take.

(docket # 46 at 1) Counsel indicates “[a]ll data requested by OIA was submitted in draft

form on September 1, 2009. The formal MLAT request was sent to Mexico on March 25,

2010.” (Id.) No explanation is given why it took six months from submitting the data to

OIA and making the formal MLAT request. Nevertheless, counsel represents he has

“maintained contact with OIA and made numerous inquiries regarding the status of the

request . . . made two trips to Mexico in furtherance of the MLAT request . . . [and] has

had several conversations with Mexican officials and U.S. officials at the Embassy in an

effort to move things along quickly.” (Id. at 2) “Assurances have been provided by the

head of SIEDO that the requests contained in the MLAT will be undertaken.” Plaintiff’s

counsel further states that “[t]he Mexican government is in the process of collecting the

evidence in furtherance of this investigation, but cannot complete those requests in time

for Plaintiff to [comply with] the deadline of July 9, 2010. It is also unlikely that the

formal response to the MLAT will be available by August 20, 2010.” (Id.) He does

confirm that all other discovery has been completed. (Id.) 

III. Discussion

“The district court is given broad discretion in supervising the pretrial phase

of litigation, and its decisions regarding the preclusive effect of a pretrial order . . . will

not be disturbed unless they evidence a clear abuse of discretion.” Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 1992). Rule 16(b)(4) provides that a district

court’s scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 47 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 5
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 -

consent.” Rule 16(b)(4), Fed.R.Civ.P. 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) (quoting Johnson,

975 F.2d at 609)). If the party seeking a modification of the scheduling order’s deadlines

did not exercise diligence, then the motion 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 Government’s

citation to 18 U.S.C. § 3292(a)(1) dealing with the tolling of the statute of limitations for

a criminal offense when “evidence of an offense is in a foreign country” is neither

controlling nor applicable when a party seeks a modification of a Rule 16 scheduling

order in a civil forfeiture action.

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

attempting to meet the July 9, 2010 supplementation deadline and the August 20, 2010

discovery completion deadline and good cause exists to grant a one-time extension of

these deadlines. The discovery in Mexico the United States seeks to take is totally

dependent on the MLAT process which purportedly is the only procedure which allows

the collection of evidence in Mexico by the United States. Because the Government’s

discovery request may ultimately be denied by the Mexican government or more delay

with the MLAT process may further unreasonably stall the resolution of this case beyond

the requested six-month extension, the Court will not grant any further extensions to

enable the Government to complete its discovery in Mexico.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Discovery

Deadline, docket # 46, as to discovery requested by Plaintiff via the MLAT process, is

GRANTED.

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 47 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

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, January 14,

2011. 

2. Completion of all discovery: Friday, February 18, 2011.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there will be no further extensions to

allow the Government or Claimant to complete discovery.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01499-MHB Document 47 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 5