Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01341/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01341-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cv1341-LAB (JLB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

STAY;

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE

OVERSIZE REPLY BRIEF;

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE

RECORD; 

ORDER REJECTING OVERSIZE

BRIEF; AND

ORDER VACATING HEARING

vs.

$20,000 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Defendant.

The government filed an ex parte motion to stay the forfeiture proceedings (Docket

no. 19), arguing that they were related to a criminal investigation or proceeding, and that civil

discovery would adversely affect that. In response, Claimant Thomas Yankle said he was

withdrawing discovery requests, which mooted the need for a stay. The government did not

seek leave to reply to Yankle’s withdrawal, and the Court accepts that withdrawal of the

production requests has mooted the need for a stay. The motion for a stay is therefore

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the government believes a stay is still needed, it may

renew the request.

/ / /

- 1 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 38 Filed 06/11/15 Page 1 of 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

Yankle has filed three motions: one to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a federal

search warrant (Docket no. 22), one to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a state search

warrant (Docket no. 23), and one for summary judgment. The United States opposed all

three. Yankle has now filed reply briefs. The reply brief pertaining to the federal warrant

substantially exceeds the ten-page limit for reply briefs.1 See Civil Local Rule 7.1(h). He has

also filed a motion for leave to file the oversized reply brief, as well as a motion to

supplement the record. The motion to exceed page length doesn’t identify which of the three

reply briefs it’s talking about. Logically, it should refer to the one that’s over-length, i.e., the

brief concerning the federal warrant. But that brief addresses evidence that didn’t exist until

after the federal warrant was issued, so it’s not clear whether it’s referring to the summary

judgment motion, or the motion pertaining to the state warrant. The motion to expand the

record anticipates that the government will want to file a response.

Ordinarily, arguments not raised in the opening brief are waived. See Rizk v. Holder,

629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). This means the movant must make his chief

arguments in his opening brief, and nonmoving parties must make their arguments in their

opposition brief. A reply brief allows the movant an opportunity to respond to arguments

raised in the opposition. Here, however, Yankle concedes he has raised new arguments in

his reply brief, and he wants to introduce and have the Court consider newly-obtained

evidence. 

Expanding the three motions at this late stage to raise substantial new issues would

be unwieldy and unnecessarily complicate and delay proceedings. The ex parte requests to

file an oversized reply brief, and to expand the record (Docket nos. 36, 37) are DENIED.

Yankle has two options. If he wishes, he may withdraw his pending motions and file

amended versions of those motions, relying on the new evidence and arguments. Amended

motions should be filed no later than July 10, 2015, and must comply with applicable page

1

 The motion does not say which reply brief it pertains to, but presumably it refers to

the longest one (Docket no. 33), which pertains to the motion to suppress evidence seized

pursuant to the federal search warrant. At 32 pages (of which 26 pages are filled with

argument), that brief exceeds even the page limits for an opening brief. An additional 204

pages are attached as exhibits.

- 2 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 38 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 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

limits. If he chooses to file amended motions, he must also promptly move to amend the

scheduling order in order to continue the final pretrial conference, which is on calendar for

July 6, 2015. Or, if he decides not to rely on the new evidence and arguments and wishes

to waive those arguments, he may leave the motions pending, and the Court will rule on the

motions in due course. 

The reply brief Yankle filed (Docket no. 33) is REJECTED and the Clerk is directed

to remove it from the docket. Yankle may file an amended reply brief pertaining to the same

motion, subject to regular page limits, by June 16, 2015.

The hearing on Yankle’s three motions (Docket nos. 22, 23, and 24), currently on

calendar for June 15, 2015 at 11:15 a.m., is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 11, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cv1341

Case 3:14-cv-01341-LAB-JLB Document 38 Filed 06/11/15 Page 3 of 3