# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 27 01

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

$2 84 ,95 0.0 0 i n U.S. Cu rren cy

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t

Nik ko la s Th om

ps on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Cl ai man t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 8, 2 01 9
Fil ed : Au gu st 12 , 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, GRUEND ER, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.Nik ko la s Tho m ps on ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t in fav or of th e 1

Uni te d S ta te s i n t hi s ci vi l fo rfei tu re ac ti on . W e aff irm.

In 20 15

, Tran sp or ta ti on Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on a ge nt s at th e Lit tl e Ro ck

, Ark an sa s ai rp or t di sc ov ered ne arl y $2 85 ,00 0 in cas h in a fal se bo tt om of Tho m ps on ’s

su it cas e, an d a dr ug -s ni ffi ng do g in di cat ed th e od or of na rco ti cs on th e su it cas e. The

Gov ern m en t fil ed a co m pl ai nt se ek in g to fo rfei t th e m on ey un de r 21 U.S.C.
§ 88 1( a)(6 ). Tho m

ps on f i l e d a ve rif

ie d cl ai m an d an swe r co nt es ti ng th e

Gov ern m en t’s act io n, as se rti ng th at pa rt of th e m on ey be lo ng ed to a bu si ne ss , pa rt of

it was pe rs on al sa vi ng s joi nt ly he ld wit h hi s gi rlf rie nd

, an d th at he “ ha s an in te res t in

th e pr op ert y th at is th e su bjec t of th is la wsu it as an own er of th e pr op ert y , an d he ha s

a po ss es so ry in te res t an d a rig ht to po ss es s th e pr op ert y as an own er an d/ or ag en t of

th e o wne r.”

To m ai nt ai n a c l a i m fo r pr op ert y su bjec t to fo rfei tu re, a cl ai m an t m us t

es ta bl is h st an di ng

. Se e ge ne ra ll y Uni te d St at es v. $3 1,0 00 .00 in U.S. Cu rr en cy , 87 2

F.3 d 34 2, 3 48 (6 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Su pp le m en ta l Ru le G(5 ) of th e Su pp le m en ta l Ru le s

fo r Adm ira lt y or Mar it im e Cl ai m s an d Ass et Fo rfei tu re Acti on s se ts a lo w th res ho ld

fo r cl ai m an ts in it ia ll y to es ta bl is h st at ut or y st an di ng , req ui rin g on ly th at a cl ai m in a
ci vi l forf ei tu re pro ceed in g “ id en ti fy th e cl ai m an t an d st at e th e cl ai m an t’s int eres t in

th e pr op ert y .” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. S u p p

. R

. G ( 5) (a)( i)( B); se e al so Uni te d St at es v.
$5 79 ,47 5.0 0 in U.S. Cu rr en cy , 91 7 F.3 d 10 47

, 10 48 -4 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 9 )

. Bu t th e

as se rti on of an “ in te res t in th e pr op ert y ” th at is ne ces s ary to sa ti sf y Su pp le m en ta ry

Ru le G(5 ) m ay tu rn ou t to be fal se

. The refo re, “ [u ]nli ke in typic al ci vi l pr oc eed in gs , th e go ve rn m en t m ay co m m en ce li m it ed di sc ov ery im m ed ia te ly aft er a ve rif ie d cl ai m
is fil ed ,” Uni te d St at es v. $1 33 ,42 0.0 0 in U.S. Cu rr en cy , 67 2 F.3 d 62 9, 63 5 (9 th Ci r.

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, U n i t e d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1

Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-20 12 ), fo r th e pu rp os e of “ ga th er[i ng ] in fo rm a t i o n th at be ars on th e cl ai m an t’s

st an di ng ,” Fed . R . C iv

. P

. S u p p . R . G ad vi so ry co m m it te e’s no te to 20 06 ad op ti on

. Th e sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s pr ov id ed fo r in Su pp le m en ta l Ru le G(6 ) op era t e a s a

“ m ech an is m to ad dr es s un su bs ta nt ia te d cl ai m s” an d “ m ay be us ed to te st th e
cl ai m an t’s rel at io ns hi p to th e pr op ert y .” $5 7 9

, 4 7 5 .00

, 91 7 F.3 d at 10 49

. If a
cl ai m an t’s as se rti on s of own ers hi p in hi s in it ia l cl ai m are un de rm in ed by hi s an swe rs

to th e sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s, his st an di ng co ul d th en be ch al le ng ed on a m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t, whe r e t h e cl ai m an t wou ld ha ve to “ carr y th e bu rd en of

es ta bl is hi ng st an di ng by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. Su pp

. R. G(8 )(c) ; se e ge ne ra ll y Uni te d St at es v. $1 33 ,42 0.0 0

, 67 2 F.3 d at 63 8- 39
(ex pl ai ni ng th at “ at th e m ot io n t o di sm is s st ag e, a cl ai m an t’s un eq ui vo cal as se rti on

of an own ers hi p in te res t i n t he pr op ert y is su ffi ci en t by i ts el f to es ta bl is h st an di ng ”

bu t “ [a] cl ai m an t as se rti ng an own ers hi p in te res t in th e de fen da nt pr op ert y

. . . m us t

al so pr es en t so m e ev id en ce of own ers hi p be y on d th e m ere as se rti on in o r d e r to

su rv iv e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t” fo r la ck of st an di ng (in te rn al q uo ta ti on

m ark s o m it te d) ).

The Gov ern m en t se rv ed Tho m ps on wit h sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s pu rs ua nt to

Su pp le m e nt al Ru le G(6 ). The Gov ern m en t id en ti fie d se ve ral de fic ie nc ie s in

Tho m ps on ’s an swe rs

. Afte r he di d no t su pp le m en t hi s an swe rs , th e Gov ern m en t fil ed

a m ot io n to st rik e Tho m

ps on ’s cl ai m be cau se he fai le d to co m pl y wit h Su pp le m en ta l

Ru le s G(5) and G(6 ). Se e Fed . R. Civ . P. Sup p. R. G(8 )(c) (i) (A). The Gov ern m en t

as k e d t h a t Tho m

ps on at le as t be co m

pe ll ed to pr ov id e ad eq ua te res po ns es to th e

sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s i f th e co ur t ch os e n ot to st rik e Tho m ps on ’s cla im

.

On Ju ly 27

, 20 17

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc l u d e d t h a t Tho m ps on ’s cl ai m ha d

sa ti sf ie d Su pp le m en ta ry Ru le G(5 )’s in it ia l th res ho ld fo r st an d in g, de ni ed th e

Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n to st rik e, an d or de red Tho m ps on to “ su pp le m en t hi s res po ns es

to th e sp eci al in te rro g a t o r i e s a s req ue st ed by th e Uni te d St at es wit hi n 21 da y s.”

-3

-Des pi te m

ul ti pl e ex te ns io ns of ti m e acce de d to by th e Gov ern m en t, Tho m ps on

co nt in ue d to pr ov id e in co m pl et e res po ns es to th e in ter ro ga tor ie s, an d the Gov ern m en t

fil ed an ot he r m ot io n to st rik e hi s cl ai m

. Tho m ps on co un te red th at th e in te rro ga to rie s

were ov erl y bu rd en so m e an d so ug ht a pr ot ect iv e or de r. He al so fil ed a mo t i o n to

di sm is s th e fo rfei tu re pr oc eed in gs , a r gu in g th at th e Gov ern m en t’s co m pl ai nt fai le d

to st at e a cl ai m a ga in st th e se iz ed cu rren cy

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Tho m ps on ’s

m ot io n fo r a pr ot ect i v e o r d er, st ru ck hi s cl ai m as a Ru le 37 di sc ov ery sa nc ti on fo r

fai li ng to co m

pl y wit h th e Ju ly 2 7, 2 01 7 o rd er, an d de ni ed hi s m ot io n to di sm is s as

m oo t. The di st ric t co ur t th en gr an te d th e Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n fo r de fau lt jud gm en t

an d a dec ree o f fo rfei tu re an d d en ie d Th om ps on ’s m ot io n t o alt er the jud gm en t and

fo r rec on si de rat io n.

Fi rs t, we rev ie w Tho m

ps on ’s ap pe al of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to st rik e hi s
cl ai m fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Uni te d St at es v. On e Pa r c e l o f Pro p. Lo ca te d at

RR 2, In de

p., Buc ha na n Ct

y. , 95 9 F.2 d 10 1, 10 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 92 ). “ A cl ai m an t’s

fai lu re to co m

pl y wit h th e in te rro ga to ry ru le is gr ou nd s to s t r i k e t h e cl ai m .”

$5 79 ,47 5.0 0

, 91 7 F.3 d at 10 49

. A cl ai m an t who “ fai ls to ob ey an or de r to pr ov id e or

pe rm it di sc ov ery” ru ns th e ris k of th e di st ric t co ur t “ st rik in g [h is ] pl ead in gs in who le

or in pa rt.” Fed

. R. C i v

. P

. 3 7 ( b) (2 )(A). An “ ev as iv e or in co m pl et e di sc lo su re,

an swe r, or res po ns e” to an in te rro ga to ry co ns ti tu te s a fai lu re to an swe r. Fed

. R. Ci v.

P. 37 (a)( 4)

. St rik in g a cl ai m is “ an ex tre m e sa nc ti on th at sh ou l d be ap pl ie d on ly

whe re th ere i s a n o r d e r co m pe ll in g di sc ov ery, a wil lfu l vi ol at io n of th e or de r, an d

pr ejud ic e to th e ot he r pa rty.” Uni te d St at es v. $1 1,0 71 ,18 8.6 4 in U.S. Cu rr en cy , 82 5

F.3 d 36 5, 36 9 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 6 ) ( i n t ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Bu t in th e ci vi l

fo rfei tu re co nt ex t, “ th e sp eci al ro le th at [s pe ci al in te rro ga to rie s] pl ay [] in th e sc he m e

fo r de te rm in in g cl ai m st an di ng m ay jus ti fy a so m e w h at m or e de m an di ng ap pr oa ch

th an th e ge ne r a l ap pr oa ch to di sc ov ery sa nc ti on s un de r Ru le 37 .” Fed

. R. Ci v. P.

Su pp . R. G adv is or y

co m m it te e’s no te to 20 06 ad op ti on

.

-4

-Here, th e di st ric t co ur t or de red Tho m ps on to pr ov id e su pp le m en ta l res po ns es

to th e sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s. Tho m ps on ’s r es po ns es sh owe d a wil lfu l v i o la ti on of

th is di sc ov ery or de r. He fai le d to ve rif y hi s su pp le m en ta l an swe rs as req ui red by Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 33 (b )(5 ). He fai le d to su pp le m en t hi s res po ns e to Sp eci al In te rro ga to ry 1

en ti rel y

. He al so fai le d to id en ti fy rel ev a n t d o c u men ts as req ue st ed an d ga ve

co nf us in g acco un ts of who own ed th e m on ey , as se rti ng in hi s res po ns es th at he ha d

a pe rs on al own ers hi p in te res t in al l of it an d th at pa rt of it was pr op ert y of a se pa rat e
bu si ne ss , of whi ch he an d hi s gi rlf rie nd were bo th pa rtn ers

. He ha d al read y as se rte d

in hi s cl ai m th at he an d hi s gi rlf rie nd own ed pa rt of th e m on ey joi nt ly as sa vi ng s. His

res po ns es fai le d to cl ari fy whi ch po rti on s be lo ng ed to whi ch pa rti es

. Fi na ll y , th e

Gov ern m en t m ad e se ve ral req ue st s fo r do cu m en ts or reco rd s th at su pp or te d hi s cl ai m

th at he ob ta in ed th e cu rren cy th ro ug h gi fts

, in ve st m en ts

, an d em pl oym en t, to whi ch

Tho m ps on rep li ed th at he co ul d no t pr ov id e res po ns iv e do cu m en t s be cau se th e

Gov ern m en t ha d se iz ed rel ev an t do cu m en ts

. In real it y , th e Gov ern m en t ha d of fere d

Tho m ps on acce ss to al l of hi s in fo rm at io n in it s po ss es si on , bu t Tho m p s o n ne ve r

acce pt ed th is off

er.

The se op aq ue , co nf

us in g, an d ev as iv e res p o n se s pr ejud ic ed th e Gov ern m en t by hi nd eri ng it s ab il it y to “ ga th er in fo rm at io n th at be ars on th e cl ai m an t’s st an di ng ”

as pr ov id ed fo r in th e Su pp le m en ta l Ru le s. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P. Su pp

. R. G ad vi so ry

co m m it te e’s no te to 20 06 ad op ti on

. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th at whe r e th e

Gov er n men t co nc ed es th at a cl ai m an t ha s es ta bl is he d st an di ng , no sp eci al

in te rro ga to rie s are ne ces sa ry to te st th at is su e, an d it wou ld be an ab us e of di sc ret io n

to st rik e a cl ai m fo r fai lu re to res po nd to th em

. Uni te d St at es v. $1 54 ,85 3.0 0 in U.S.

Cu rr en cy , 74 4 F

. 3 d 5 5 9

, 56 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by

$5 79 ,47 5.0 0

, 91 7 F.3 d at 10 49 -5 0. Bu t he re, th e Gov ern m en t ha s no t co nc ed ed

Tho m ps on ’s st an di ng an d act iv el y co nt es ts it

. Mo reo ve r, Tho m ps on ’s res po ns es to

th e sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s act ua ll y rai se d si gn ifi can t qu es ti o ns ab ou t hi s st an di ng

. Fo r ex am pl e, th ou gh he pr ov id ed so m e ba nk an d ta x do cu m en ts

, th ey do no t ex pl ai n

-5

-hi s po ss es si on of so m uc h cu rr e n c y, an d he ha s fai le d to pr ov id e th es e do cu m en ts

wit h an y co nt ex t th at wou ld al lo w th e Gov ern m en t to co nn ect th e cu rren cy wit h hi s

fin an ci al hi st or y

. And be cau se of th e am bi gu it y of hi s res po ns es , it rem ai ns un cl ear
whi ch po rti on of th e cu rren cy he is cl ai m in g an d whi ch po rti on i s cl ai m ed by hi s gi rlf rie nd or th ei r bu si ne ss

. In sh or t, Tho m ps on ’s st an di ng was co nt es te d an d was rip e fo r de te rm in at io n on su m m ary ju d gm en t, an d Tho m ps on pr ejud ic ed th e

Gov ern m en t by wil lfu ll y fai li ng to res po nd ad eq ua te ly to di sc ov ery th at so ug ht to te st

th at st an di ng aft er be in g or de red to do so by th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e Fed

. R. Ci v. P.

Su pp

. R. G(8 )(c) (i) (A). W e fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

to st rik e hi s c la im

. Se e $1 1,0 71 ,18 8.6 4

, 82 5 F.3 d at 36 9- 70 (fi nd in g no ab us e of

di sc ret io n in st rik in g a cl ai m whe n th e cl ai m an t wil lfu ll y di so be y ed t h e di sc ov ery

or de r).

Fi na ll y , Tho m

ps on arg ue s th at h i s m ot io n to di sm is s was im pr op erl y de ni ed

be cau se t h e G ov ern m en t fai le d to st at e a cl ai m ag ai ns t th e cu rren cy

. Bu t th e

Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n to st rik e “ m us t be de ci de d bef

or e an y m ot io n by th e cl ai m an t

to di sm is s th e act io n.” Fed

. R. Ci v. P. Su pp

. R. G ( 8 ) ( c ) ( i i ) ( A). And whe n
Tho m ps on ’s cl ai m is “ st ric ke n, he is ou t of th e cas e.” Uni te d St at e s v

. Beech cr af t Q u e e n Air

pl an e Se ri al No

. LD-2 4

, 78 9 F.2 d 62 7, 62 7, 63 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). N o
lo ng er a pa rty, he ha s no “ le ga ll y co gn iz ab le in te res t in th e ou tc om e” of th e fo rfei tu re

act io n, an d hi s m ot io n to di sm is s is m oo t. Se e Alr ea dy

, LLC v. Ni ke, In c. , 56 8 U.S. 2

In ad di ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Tho m ps on ’s m ot io n to di sm is s 2

as pr em at ur e be cau se “ [t]he go ve rn m en t ne ed no t res po nd to a cl ai m an t’s m ot io n to di sm is s th e act io n un de r Ru le G(8 )(b ) un ti l 21 da y s aft er th e cl ai m an t has an swe red
th es e in te rro ga to rie s,” wh ic h h e n ev er d id . Fed . R. Civ . P. Sup p. R. G(6 )(c)

.

-6

-85

, 91 (2 01 3)

. W e al so de cl in e to reac h Tho m ps on ’s co ns ti tu ti on al arg um en ts

, whi ch

are l ik ewis e m oo t. 3

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

. 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Tho m ps on cl ai m ed fo r th e fir st t i me i n a le tt er pu rs ua nt to Ru le 28 (j) of th e 3

Fed eral Ru le s of App el la te Pro ced ur e th at th e st rik in g of hi s cl ai m vi ol at ed th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t’s pr oh ib it io n on ex ces si ve fin es

. “ Bec au se an ap pe ll an t is no t pe rm it te d

to rai se arg um en ts fo r th e fir st ti m e in a Ru le 28 (j) le tt er, we de cl in e to co ns id er [th e]

arg um en t.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Th omp so n , 56 0 F .3d 74 5, 7 51 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9)

.

W e de ny th e Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n to su pp le m en t th e r e c o r d in li gh t of ou r 4

de ci si on

.

-7

-