Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00798/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00798-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Approximately $23,500.00 in U.S. Currency
Defendant
Guy Guerra
Claimant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) 

)

APPROXIMATELY $23,500.00 IN )

U.S. CURRENCY, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:06-cv-00798-AWI-SMS

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

Trial Expert Disclosure

Deadline: 10/17/06

Non-Expert Discovery Deadline:

8/20/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 11/20/07 

Settlement Conference Date: 

not applicable at this time

Pre-Trial Conference Date:

1/18/08, 8:30am, Ctrm. 2/AWI

Trial Date: 3/24/08, 9:00am,

Ctrm. 2/AWI (CT ~ 1-2 days)

1. Date of Scheduling Conference:

September 20, 2006.

2. Appearances of Counsel:

Assistant United States Attorney Stephanie Hamilton

Borchers appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and e-filed Plaintiff’s

Scheduling Report on September 13, 2005 (Doc. 9).

//

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 9
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

Pro Se Claimant, Guy Andrew Guerra, DID NOT appear or

otherwise contact the court and/or opposing counsel, and did not

participate in the preparation of a Joint Scheduling Report as

required by the court’s standard Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference, e-filed June 22, 2006 (Doc. 3-1), page 3, lines 17-22.

3. The Pleadings:

A. Summary of the Pleadings.

Plaintiff’s Contentions

This is an in rem civil forfeiture action. In its

Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem, the Government alleges

that the approximately $23,500.00 in U.S. Currency (“defendant

currency”) constitutes moneys furnished or intended to be furnished

by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed

chemical, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange and/or was

used or intended to be used to facilitate one or more violations of

21 U.S.C. § 841 et seq., and is therefore subject to forfeiture to

the United States pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).

The defendant currency was seized from Guy Andrew

Guerra during a traffic stop on Highway 99 in Turlock, CA, on

February 4, 2006, along with approximately 176.4 grams of

marijuana; approximately 64.1 grams of marijuana seeds; a digital

scale; marijuana smoking paraphernalia; approximately 8.1 grams of

psilocybin mushrooms; and, a large empty black duffle bag that

smelled strongly of marijuana.

Guy Guerra filed an answer on September 5, 2006, but

has not filed a claim; and alleges that he is an innocent owner, or

part owner, of the seized property; and, denies that the property

is subject to the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(b).

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 9
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

B. Orders Re: Amendment of Pleadings.

Plaintiff contends no amendments are proposed at

this time.

4. Factual Summary:

A. Admitted Facts which are deemed proven without 

further proceedings.

(1) Plaintiff believes it is uncontested that the

Government filed a Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem on June

22, 2006.

(2) Plaintiff believes that the defendant currency

was arrested on July 7, 2006, pursuant to a Warrant and Summons for

Arrest issued on June 22, 2006.

B. Contested Facts.

(1) Plaintiff contends the facts are as alleged in

the Verified Complaint.

5. Legal Issues:

A. Uncontested.

(1) Plaintiff believes jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1355, and 21 U.S.C. § 881.

(2) Plaintiff believes venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1395.

B. Contested.

(1) Plaintiff contends the defendant currency is

subject to forfeiture.

6. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Dates:

Plaintiff contends that due to the nature of this case,

plaintiff does not believe that initial disclosures are necessary

or appropriate.

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 9
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

Plaintiff will focus discovery on identifying the source

of the defendant currency and Guy Guerra’s alleged ownership

interest.

Plaintiff does not believe that non-retained percipient

witness experts, such as law enforcement officers, need to be

disclosed as experts, or reports produced, under FRCP Rule

26(a)(2), but agrees that any expert “retained or specially

employed” by either party shall be disclosed, and a report

produced, in accordance with FRCP Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

Plaintiff agrees that, to the extent that drug evidence

seized has been, or will be, examined by an employee of any state,

local, or federal agency, that production of the laboratory

analysis, in the usual format provided to criminal defendants, will

satisfy the requirement of the production of a “report” under FRCP

Rule 26(a)(2)(B).

Plaintiff shall disclose the identity of an expert

“retained or specially employed” to provide expert testimony.

The parties are ordered to complete all discovery

pertaining to non-experts on or before August 20, 2007.

The parties are directed to disclose all trial expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before October 19, 2007. The written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule

26(a)(2), (A) and (B), and shall include all information required

thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance with this

Order may result in the court excluding the testimony or other

evidence offered through such experts that are not disclosed

pursuant to this Order.

//

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 9
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

The provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4) shall apply to

all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. Experts must

be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and opinions

included in the designation. Failure to comply will result in the

imposition of sanctions, which may include striking the expert

designation and preclusion of expert testimony.

7. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule:

Any Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, are heard on Fridays at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom

No. 7 on the Sixth Floor before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder,

United States Magistrate Judge. The parties must comply with Local

Rule 37-251 with respect to discovery disputes or the motion will

be denied without prejudice and dropped from calendar.

Additionally, Local Rule 5-133(f) requires courtesy copies in

excess of 25 and/or 50 pages be provided to the court. In

scheduling such motions, the Magistrate Judge may grant

applications for an order shortening time pursuant to Local Rule 6-

144(e). However, if the parties do not obtain an order shortening

time, the notice of motion must comply with Local Rule 37-251. 

All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions shall be filed on or

before November 20, 2007, and are heard on Mondays at 1:30 p.m. in

Courtroom No. 2 on the Eighth Floor before the Honorable Anthony W.

Ishii, United States District Judge. In scheduling such motions,

the parties shall comply with Local Rule 78-230.

9. Pre-Trial Conference Date:

January 18, 2008 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 on the

Eighth Floor before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States

District Judge.

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 9
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

 If WordPerfect 11 is not available to the parties, then the latest version of WordPerfect, or 1

any other word processing program in general use for IBM compatible personal computers, is

acceptable.

6

Ten (10) days prior to the Pretrial Conference, the

parties shall exchange the disclosures required pursuant to

F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(3). 

The parties are ordered to file a JOINT Pretrial

Statement pursuant to Local Rule 16-281(a)(2). The parties are

further ordered to submit a digital copy of their Joint Pretrial

Statement in WordPerfect 11 format to Judge Ishii’s chambers by 1

e-mail to AWIOrders@caed.uscourts.gov.

The parties' attention is directed to Rules 16-281 and

16-282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California as to their obligations in preparing for the Pre-Trial

Conference. The Court will insist upon strict compliance with

those Rules.

9. Trial Date:

March 24, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 2 on the

Eighth Floor before the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United States

District Judge.

A. This is a court trial.

B. Counsels' Estimate of Trial Time: 

1-2 days.

C. The parties' attention is directed to Rule 16-285 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of California.

10. Settlement Conference:

Should the parties desire a Settlement Conference, they

will jointly request one of the Court, and one will be arranged. 

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 9
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

7

In making such a request, the parties are directed to notify the

Court as to whether or not they desire the undersigned to conduct

the Settlement Conference or to arrange for one before another

judicial officer.

11. Request for Bifurcation, Appointment of Special Master,

or other Techniques to Shorten Trial:

Plaintiff contends not applicable at this time.

12. Related Matters Pending:

Plaintiff contends there are no pending related matters.

13. Compliance with Federal Procedure:

The Court requires compliance with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California. To aid the Court in the efficient

administration of this case, all parties are expected to

familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

and the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District of

California, and to keep abreast of any amendments thereto. The

Court must insist upon compliance with these Rules if it is to

efficiently handle its increasing caseload. Sanctions will be

imposed for failure to follow the Rules as provided in both the

Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Local Rules.

14. Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:

On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

management/filing district (CM/ECF). Unless excused by the Court,

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

as of January 3, 2005 in all actions pending before the court.

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 7 of 9
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

8

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

official court record in all cases will be electronic. Attorneys

are required to file electronically in pro se cases. More

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

the Court’s Amended Local Rules effective January 3, 2005, the

Court’s CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the Court’s CM/ECF User’s

Manual.

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

an improper format. An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

these electronic filing procedures. See L.R. 11-110, L.R.

5-133(d)(3).

If counsel has not already done so, counsel must register

for CM/ECF as soon as possible. On-line registration is available

at www.caed.uscourts.gov. Once registered, counsel will receive a

login and password in approximately one (1) week. Counsel must be

registered to file documents on-line. See L.R. 5-135(g). Counsel

are responsible for knowing the rules governing electronic filing

in the Eastern District. Please review the Court’s Local Rules

effective January 3, 2005, available on the Court’s web site.

15. Effect of this Order:

The foregoing Order represents the best estimate of the

Court and plaintiff’s counsel as to the agenda most suitable to

bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 8 of 9
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

9

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this Order cannot be met,

the parties are ordered to notify the Court immediately so that

adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by subsequent

status conference.

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained herein

will not be considered unless they are accompanied by affidavits or

declarations and, where appropriate, attached exhibits which

establish good cause for granting the relief requested.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER SHALL RESULT IN THE

IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00798-AWI -SMS Document 12 Filed 09/22/06 Page 9 of 9