IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 v.

Thirty-six (36) 300CC on road scooters,

Model WF300-SP, (D One), et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:11-cv-0130

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge Abel

Order

Claimant Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., dba Wildfire Motors ("Wildfire") is the

claimant to internal combustion engines and other merchandise manufactured in China

that were seized by U.S. Customs. This matter is before the Magistrate Judge on claimant’s

August 31, 2013 motion to compel (doc. 38) and plaintiff’s September 19, 2013 motion for a

protective order (doc. 40).

Motion to compel. Arguing that the Court’s September 27, 2012 Opinion and Order

(doc. 29) denying its motion for summary judgment on the due process issues pleaded in

its answer (doc. 9) does not preclude it from conducting discovery on due process claims

not raised in the briefing of the motion for summary judgment, claimant seeks broad

discovery about how Customs, U.S. EPA, and the DOT acted in connection with the

seizures at issue and the ensuing administrative proceedings. Wildfire seeks to conduct

discovery on the following issues: (1) due process issues not addressed in its motion for

summary judgment; (2) other procedural defects in the institution of the forfeiture action;

Case: 2:11-cv-00130-EAS-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 09/30/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
and (3) the appropriateness of forfeiture as a remedy. The motion to compel argues that

claimant has an "urgent need" for procedural manuals and policies of Customs and U.S.

EPA and documents about "the treatment of manufacturers of similar goods with respect to

the specific alleged violations in this case." Doc. 38, PageID 309.

Motion for protective order. The government seeks a protective order prohibiting

the depositions of David Alexander, an attorney-advisor assigned to the U.S. EPA's Air

Enforcement Division; Tessie Douglas, a Customs employee claimant wants to bring the

agency's "Seized Asset Management and Enforcement Procedures Handbook for

2009/2010" to her deposition; and Stuart Seigel, U.S. DOT, who was recently involved in

another, unrelated seizure. The government also seeks an order prohibiting claimant from

questioning Anne Wiuck and Mario Jorquera, employees of U.S. EPA, about any issues not

related to the compliance of the defendant merchandise to the Clean Air Act and/or

inspections of the merchandise.

September 27, 2012 Opinion and Order. After rejecting Wildfire's due process

challenges to the seizures, the Court held: "[T]he sole issue for determination in the

forfeiture action is the Claimant’s ability to establish that the defendant merchandise is

compliant with the various regulations." September 27, 2012 Opinion and Order , p. 11,

Doc. 29, PageID 278.

Analysis and ruling. Claimant’s answer pleads that Wildfire was denied due

process:

. . . including but not limited to, the failure to provide statutory and

regulatory detention notices; providing invalid and defective notices;

unreasonably delaying various agency actions that include without

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00130-EAS-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 09/30/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
limitation delays in the bringing of the forfeiture actions; being subjected

to regulations that exceed constitutionally delegated authority; and

arbitrary and unreasonable interpretation, administration, and

enforcement of regulatory provisions by administrative agencies.

March 31, 2013 Answer, ¶ 21, Doc. 9, PageID 128. Claimant had the opportunity to and did

raise these due process issues in its motion for summary judgment. The Court’s 

September 27, 2012 Opinion and Order precludes Wildfire from re-litigating those issues

now. As the decision states, the issue now before the Court is whether the defendant

merchandise complied with the regulations governing their importation. Discovery is

limited to that subject matter.

Accordingly, claimant’s August 31, 2013 motion to compel (doc. 38) is DENIED;

and plaintiff’s September 19, 2013 motion for a protective order (doc. 40) is GRANTED. 

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., and

Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt. F, 5, either party may, within fourteen (14) days after

this Order is filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for reconsideration by the

District Judge. The motion must specifically designate the Order, or part thereof, in

question and the basis for any objection thereto. The District Judge, upon consideration of

the motion, shall set aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary

to law.

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00130-EAS-MRA Doc #: 41 Filed: 09/30/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>