Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00105/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00105-1/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 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

$2,164,341 in US Currency 

Defendant.

No. CV12-0105-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the motion for discovery sanctions and entry of judgment by 

Plaintiff United States of America. Doc. 34. Before ruling on the fully briefed motion, 

the Court requested additional briefing on the issue of discovery sanctions. Doc. 37. 

Both Plaintiff and Claimant Leonardo Cornejo–Reynoso (“Claimant”) submitted 

additional memoranda. Docs. 39, 40. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will 

grant in part Plaintiff’s motion.1

I. Background. 

 Plaintiff’s complaint seeking forfeiture of $2,164,341 in United States currency 

was filed on January 17, 2012. Doc. 1. Claimant’s answer claiming an interest in the 

money was filed on February 8, 2012. Doc. 7. 

 Plaintiff served a notice of Claimant’s deposition on February 14, 2012. Doc. 9. 

The attorneys agreed that the deposition would occur on March 15, 2012. When 

 

1

 Claimant’s request for oral argument is denied. The parties’ briefings and other submissions have amply addressed the issues raised by the motion, and the Court concludes that oral argument will not aid its decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); 

Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998).

Case 2:12-cv-00105-DGC Document 41 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

Claimant had difficulty obtaining a visa to enter the United States, the deposition was 

rescheduled to April 4, 2012. Doc. 18. Plaintiff arranged for Claimant, who lives in 

Mexico and is not a U.S. citizen, to be paroled into the United States for purposes of the 

deposition, but Claimant asserted that the parole documentation was received too late and 

that he could not appear for the deposition. The parties agreed to reschedule the 

deposition for May 4, 2012. Id. 

 Subsequent efforts to secure parole documents on a schedule that would work for 

the parties were largely unsuccessful, and the parties ultimately agreed to seek an 

extension of the discovery schedule in this case, which the Court approved. Doc. 16. 

Counsel for Plaintiff was able to obtain parole documents for the month of August 2012, 

and the parties agreed Claimant’s deposition would occur on August 30, 2012. But when 

Claimant subsequently took the position that he needed assurances that he would not be 

arrested upon entering the United States (presumably for criminal charges related to 

seizure of the currency) and Plaintiff stated that no such assurances could be given, the 

parties were unable to agree that the deposition would go forward. Plaintiff filed an 

emergency motion to compel the deposition and Claimant filed an emergency motion for 

a protective order. Docs. 18, 19. 

 The Court held a telephone conference with the parties on August 27, 2012. 

Doc. 21. As a result of that conference, the Court declined to require Plaintiff to depose 

Claimant by videoconference in Mexico as requested by Claimant’s counsel. The Court 

also held that Claimant, having invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to assert his claim, 

could not refuse to appear in this District for his deposition. Because the date of the 

deposition was imminent and Claimant’s counsel sought additional time for Claimant to 

consider carefully whether he would enter this country to give the deposition, the Court 

put in place a schedule for the parties to complete the deposition. Doc. 22. The Court’s 

order required Claimant, by September 19, 2012, to advise Plaintiff whether Claimant 

was able to obtain a visa to enter the United States and, if so, how soon he could enter the 

country for purposes of a deposition. Doc. 22 at 2. If Claimant was not able to obtain a 

Case 2:12-cv-00105-DGC Document 41 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 6
- 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 

visa, the Court’s order stated that Plaintiff should make arrangements for Claimant to be 

paroled into the country to complete his deposition no later than November 30, 2012. Id. 

The Court ordered that Claimant “shall appear for his deposition in this District on or 

before November 30, 2012.” Id. 

 Claimant did not comply with the Court’s order. He did not notify Plaintiff by 

September 19, 2012 whether he could obtain a visa to enter the country. Plaintiff’s 

counsel nonetheless took steps to obtain parole documents and schedule the deposition. 

On September 11, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel wrote to Claimant’s counsel and proposed 

several deposition dates between mid-September and early November 2012. Doc. 27-1 at 

2. Claimant’s counsel did not respond to the proposed dates until October 5, 2012, when 

Claimant’s Counsel wrote a letter requesting that the deposition occur in the second half 

of November, and stating that Claimant had recently discovered that a criminal case was 

pending against him in Coconino County Superior Court. Doc. 26-1 at 1. Plaintiff 

scheduled Claimant’s deposition for October 23, 2012 (Doc. 25), and in response 

Claimant filed an emergency motion for a protective order (Doc. 26). 

 The Court held a telephone conference with the parties on October 19, 2012. 

Doc. 28. As a result of that conference, the Court denied Claimant’s motion for a 

protective order and ordered Claimant to appear for his deposition on October 24, 2012. 

Docs. 29, 32. Claimant failed to appear. Doc. 33. 

II. Discussion. 

 A. Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine. 

 Plaintiff submits that the Court may enter judgment in its favor under the fugitive 

disentitlement provision of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2466(a) (“CAFRA”). Doc. 24 at 9-13. The Ninth Circuit has adopted the following 

five-part test for determining whether a fugitive may be disentitled: “(1) a warrant or 

similar process must have been issued in a criminal case for the claimant’s apprehension; 

(2) the claimant must have had notice or knowledge of the warrant or process; (3) the 

criminal case must be related to the forfeiture action; (4) the claimant must not be 

Case 2:12-cv-00105-DGC Document 41 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 6
- 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 

confined or otherwise held in custody in another jurisdiction; and (5) the claimant must 

have deliberately avoided criminal prosecution by leaving the United States, declining to 

enter or reenter the country, or otherwise evading the criminal court’s jurisdiction.” 

United States. v. $6,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 581 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations 

omitted). “Section 2466 does not mandate disentitlement once these five elements have 

been satisfied. Rather, it provides that “[a] judicial officer may disallow a person from 

using the resources of the courts of the United States.’” Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2466 (emphasis added)). 

 Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the five elements of § 2466. Plaintiff has not 

presented clear evidence that a warrant has been issued for Claimant’s arrest or that the 

action pending in Coconino County Superior Court is related to this action. The Court 

therefore will deny Plaintiff’s motion for judgment under the fugitive disentitlement 

doctrine. 

B. Discovery Sanctions. 

 Plaintiff has been seeking diligently to take Claimant’s deposition since February 

of 2012. Three times Plaintiff has completed the difficult process of arranging for 

Claimant to be paroled into the United States for his deposition, and three times Claimant 

has declined to appear. Claimant has twice failed to comply with orders of this Court: 

Claimant failed to advise Plaintiff on or before September 19, 2012, whether Plaintiff 

was able to obtain a visa to enter the United States (as ordered in Doc. 22), and Claimant 

failed to appear for his deposition on October 24, 2012 (as ordered in Doc. 32). 

Sanctions are warranted. 

 Plaintiff asks the Court to strike Claimant’s answer and enter judgment in its 

favor. Before case-terminating sanctions can be imposed, however, the Court must 

consider five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

(2) the court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking 

sanctions; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the 

availability of less drastic sanctions.” Hester v. Vision Airlines, 687 F.3d 1162, 1169 (9th 

Case 2:12-cv-00105-DGC Document 41 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). “[W]here a court order is violated, factors 1 and 2 support 

sanctions and 4 cuts against case dispositive sanctions, so 3 and 5 . . . are decisive.” 

Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998). 

 The third factor looks to whether Claimant’s behavior “impaired [Plaintiff’s] 

ability to go to trial or threatened to interfere with the rightful decision of the case.” 

Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States ex. 

Rel. Wiltec Guam, Inc. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., 857 F.2d 600, 604 (9th Cir. 1988)). 

Although Claimant has responded to some written discovery, his deposition is clearly the 

most important discovery step in this case. Claimant professes to own the more than $2 

million seized from his truck, and it is his assertion of ownership that Plaintiff must 

overcome to obtain forfeiture. Claimant’s steadfast refusal to appear for his deposition in 

the District clearly has impaired Plaintiff’s ability to go to trial. Claimant’s deposition 

avoidance also caused the Court to extend the discovery schedule by almost six months, 

an extension that ultimately failed in securing his deposition. The Court and Plaintiff are 

now faced with a closed discovery period and the prospect of trial on an incomplete 

record. Without question, Claimant’s actions have impaired Plaintiff’s ability to go to 

trial and the Court’s ability to reach a rightful decision in this case. 

 Factor 5 “involves consideration of three subparts: whether the court explicitly 

discussed alternative sanctions, whether it tried them, and whether it warned the 

recalcitrant party about the possibility of dismissal.” Valley Eng’rs, 158 F.3d at 1057. 

Although the Court did address alternative sanctions at some stages of this case, it did not 

warn Claimant that failure to appear at his deposition could result in judgment against 

him. The Court did extend the time for Claimant to appear, and made efforts to enter a 

schedule and procedure that would make his appearance as effective as possible. These 

steps did not succeed in securing Claimant’s attendance at his deposition. 

 Although the Court concludes that the entry of judgment against Claimant is not 

warranted at this stage, another Rule 37 sanction clearly is warranted. Rule 37 provides 

that a court may impose the following sanction for failure to obey an order to provide 

Case 2:12-cv-00105-DGC Document 41 Filed 01/28/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

discovery: “prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated 

claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

37(b)(2)(A)(ii). The Court imposes the following sanction: Claimant is prohibited from 

presenting his own oral or written testimony, in any form, related to the issues in this 

case. Claimant cannot submit an affidavit in response to a motion for summary judgment 

and cannot testify at trial, remotely or in person. The Court concludes that this sanction 

is warranted in light of Claimant’s repeated refusals to appear and submit to a deposition 

in this case. 

 Discovery is closed. The discovery period ended on January 22, 2013. Doc. 16. 

Dispositive motions are due on February 22, 2013. Id. The Court will adhere to this 

schedule. Plaintiff may file a motion for summary judgment in support of its claim in 

this case, and Claimant cannot oppose the motion with his own testimony, in any form.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment and/or issuance of 

terminating sanctions (Doc. 34) is denied. As a sanction for failing to comply with the 

Court’s orders, Claimant is precluded from testifying, from introducing affidavits 

containing his testimony, or from in any way presenting his own testimony in this matter. 

 Dated this 28th day of January, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00105-DGC Document 41 Filed 01/28/13 Page 6 of 6