Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00359/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00359-0/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 American 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

$37,000.00 in U.S. Currency 

Defendant. 

___________________________________ 

Aaron Orr and Jessica Deyo, 

Claimants. 

No. CV-12-00359-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are (1) Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss Case and Motion 

to Strike (Doc. 19); (2) Claimants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 24); (3) Plaintiff’s First Motion 

for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to Claimant Aaron Orr (Doc. 26); and 

(4) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 28). The Court now rules on the 

Motions. 

I. Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss Case and Motion to Strike (Doc. 19) 

Claimants request that the Court strike each of Plaintiff’s propounded discovery 

requests and Notices of Deposition and dismiss this case. Claimants argue that Plaintiff 

has failed to complete discovery in a timely manner as set forth in this Court’s 

Scheduling Order (Doc. 3), and, thus, striking the discovery requests and dismissing this 

case is warranted. 

Case 2:12-cv-00359-JAT Document 29 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 5
- 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 

 In its February 22, 2012 Scheduling Order, the Court set forth the deadline for 

completing discovery as follows: “The deadline for completing discovery is six (6) 

months from the date the case is at issue.” (Doc. 3 at 1). 

 Claimants argue that this language means that all discovery was to be completed 

six months from the day this action was commenced (filed), which was February 21, 

2012. Accordingly, Claimants argue that all discovery should have been completed no 

later than August 21, 2012. Claimants argue that they did not receive discovery requests 

until August 21, 2012 or notices of deposition until August 22, 2012 and, thus, the case 

should be dismissed because Plaintiff did not engage in timely discovery. 

 In Response, Plaintiff argues that the date the case is “at issue,” as set forth in this 

Court’s Scheduling Order, is not the date the case was commenced. Rather, Plaintiff 

argues, the date the case is “at issue” is the date of the filing of the verified Claim and 

Answer. To support its argument, Plaintiff points to the definition of “at issue” in 

Black’s Law Dictionary, which defines “at issue” as “[t]aking opposite sides; under 

dispute; in question.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009). Plaintiff argues that, in 

a forfeiture case, such as this one, the matter is not in dispute or in question until a 

verified Claim and Answer challenges the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Further, 

Plaintiff points to this Court’s website, where, under “Self-Help Tools” and “Glossary of 

Terms,” the Court relevantly defines the term “Issue” as “When the plaintiff and 

defendant have arrived at some point which one affirms and the other denies, they are 

said to be ‘at issue.’” See U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, Glossary of Terms, 

http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/azd/courtinfo.nsf/court/files/$file/glossary+of+terms.pdf 

(last visited October 3, 2012). Accordingly, Plaintiff claims that the date this case was at 

issue was April 18, 2012, the date the Claimants filed their Answer and thus, the deadline 

for completion of discovery is October 18, 2012. 

 In Reply, Claimants argue that the case became “at issue” when Plaintiff filed its 

Complaint because, prior to the filing of the case with this Court, on November 23, 2011, 

the U.S. Department of Justice mailed Claimants a Notice of Seizure letter and on that 

Case 2:12-cv-00359-JAT Document 29 Filed 10/04/12 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

same day, Claimants’ “filed1” their Statement of Interest and Petition to Contest 

Forfeiture. Accordingly, Claimants argue the case became at issue when Plaintiff filed its 

Complaint. 

 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the date the case became at issue was the 

date that Claimants filed their Answer. In its Scheduling Order, which sets forth 

deadlines relating to the case currently before the Court, the Court set the deadline for 

discovery as six months from the date the case is at issue. The Court did not indicate that 

this deadline would begin to run from the date the dispute arose between the parties, as 

Claimants contend. Indeed, the Court would have no way of establishing such a deadline 

without further information from the parties. Claimants filed their admissions and 

denials of Plaintiff’s allegations in their Answer, and thus, the date the Answer was filed 

was the date the case became at issue for the purposes of this Court’s Scheduling Order. 

Indeed, without the admissions and denials contained in the answer, it would be difficult 

for the parties to ascertain exactly what discovery would need to be conducted in the 

case. Accordingly, the discovery deadline in this case began to run on April 18, 2012. 

 Based on the foregoing, Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss Case and Motion to Strike 

(Doc. 19) is denied. In their Motion to Stay Discovery, Claimants requests that the Court 

stay discovery pending the Court’s ruling on Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion 

to Strike. In light of the foregoing, the Motion to Stay is denied as moot. 

II. Plaintiff’s First Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery as to Claimant Aaron Orr (Doc. 26). 

Plaintiff moves for an extension of time to complete discovery as to Claimant 

Aaron Orr because Claimant Orr failed to appear for his first noticed deposition and 

Claimant Orr’s counsel claims that he is incarcerated in Florida for an unknown period of 

time. Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the discovery period for 60 days to allow 

time for Claimant Orr to be located, to confirm his incarceration and to notice his 

 

1

 Claimants do not specify and it is not clear to the Court where or with whom 

this Statement of Interest and Petition to Contest Forfeiture was “filed.” 

Case 2:12-cv-00359-JAT Document 29 Filed 10/04/12 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

deposition or arrange for his deposition in the penal facility in which he is held. As a 

result, Plaintiff also request that the period for filing dispositive motions be extended 30 

days. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Complete 

Discovery as to Claimant Aaron Orr is granted. 

III. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 28) 

 Plaintiff requests that the Court order Claimant Deyo to respond to discovery 

requests propounded on August 21, 2012. Although responses to such requests were due 

on September 25, 2012, Plaintiff has received no response. Further, Plaintiff requests 

that the Court order Claimant Deyo to appear for her deposition. Plaintiff noticed Ms. 

Deyo’s deposition for September 28, 2012. After Ms. Deyo’s counsel represented that 

Ms. Deyo would not appear on that date, her deposition was cancelled. Ms. Deyo’s 

deposition was rescheduled for October 9, 2012. After Ms. Deyo’s counsel represented 

that Ms. Deyo would not appear on that date, her deposition was again cancelled. 

Plaintiff then noticed Ms. Deyo’s deposition for October 16, 2012, two days before the 

discovery deadline set by the Court. Plaintiff requests that the Court order Ms. Deyo to 

appear for her deposition on October 16, 2012. Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel Discovery is granted. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss Case and Motion to Strike 

(Doc. 19) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Claimants’ Motion to Stay (Doc. 24) is denied 

as moot. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Motion for Extension of 

Time to Complete Discovery as to Claimant Aaron Orr (Doc. 26) is granted. IT IS 

ORDERED that the deadline for completing discovery as to Claimant Aaron Orr is 

extended from October 18, 2012 to December 18, 2012. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 

extending the deadline for filing dispositive motions from December 18, 2012 to January 

18, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00359-JAT Document 29 Filed 10/04/12 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Doc. 

28) is granted. IT IS ORDERED that Claimant Deyo shall respond to all written 

discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff on or before October 10, 2012. IT IS 

FURTHER ORDERED that Claimant Deyo shall appear for her deposition on October 

16, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. 

 Dated this 3rd day of October, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-00359-JAT Document 29 Filed 10/04/12 Page 5 of 5