United States v. 2008 33' Contender Model Tournament Vessel

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 2008 33' CONTENDER MODEL TOURNAMENT VESSEL, Defendant,JULIO DE JESÚS-GOMEZ, TANIA DE JESÚS GOMEZ, Claimants.

Civil No. 12-01721 (ADC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

July 20, 2017

OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is the United States of America's ("plaintiff") motion for entry of default (ECF No. 27), plaintiff's motion to strike ("motion to strike") claimants Julio L. de Jesús Gómez ("Mr. de Jesus"), Tania de Jesús Gómez ("Ms. de Jesús"), and Luquillo Boat Glass, Inc.'s (collectively "claimants") claims and answer and for default judgment (ECF No. 28), and claimants' opposition to plaintiff's motion to strike and motion for entry of default ("opposition") (ECF No. 30). For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for entry of default and motion to strike are GRANTED.

I. Procedural Background

The procedural history of this action is drawn from the parties' submissions and it is not in dispute. The instant case is a civil forfeiture action brought by plaintiff against a 2008 33' Contender Model Tournament Vessel ("defendant vessel"). ECF No. 2. A complaint against defendant vessel was filed by plaintiff on September 4, 2012. Id. On March 8, 2013, claimants, represented by Attorney Luis R. Rivera Rodríguez ("Attorney Rivera"), filed an answer (ECF No. 16) to claim ownership of the defendant vessel. Statements of interest by Mr. de Jesús and Ms. de Jesús were attached to, and filed concurrently with, the answer. ECF No. 16-1, 16-2.

Claimants filed a motion to stay the instant civil forfeiture proceedings on October 30, 2014 on the basis that the individual claimants are defendants in a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 12-192) where the defendant vessel is also involved. ECF No. 20. On November 5, 2014, the Court denied claimants' motion to stay without prejudice, and requested from claimants an update regarding the status of the underlying criminal case. ECF No. 22. Claimants and Attorney Rivera did not respond to the Court's request to furnish information, nor did they re-submit their motion for a stay. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff's special interrogatories (the "interrogatories"), pursuant to Rule G(6) of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions ("Supplemental Rules"), were served on claimants by e-mail on November 12, 2014. ECF No. 29 at 1.

On December 4, 2014, claimants filed a motion for an extension until January 5, 2015 to answer the interrogatories ("first motion for extension"). ECF No. 23. The Court granted the first motion for extension and ordered claimants to answer the interrogatories by January 5, 2015, with the forewarning that no further extensions would be granted. ECF No. 24. On January 7, 2015, claimants filed an "emergency" motion for an extension ("second motion for extension") to answer the interrogatories by January 15, 2015. ECF No. 25. The Court denied the second motion for extension on the basis that a month-long extension had already been granted to claimants, and that claimants had been forewarned by the Court that no further extensions to answer the interrogatories would be granted. ECF No. 26.

On January 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for default entry (ECF No. 27), and the motion to strike (ECF No. 28). Claimants filed an informative motion on January 26, 2015 to inform the Court that claimants' answers to the interrogatories were served on plaintiff on January 26, 2015.¹ ECF No. 29 at 2. The opposition (ECF No. 30) was filed by claimants on the same date.

II. Legal Standard

A. Discovery Rules and Sanctions in a Civil Forfeiture Action

Rule G of the Supplemental Rules ("Rule G") "governs a forfeiture action in rem arising from a federal statute." Supp. R. Adm. or Mar. Cl. & Asset Forfeiture Actions G(1). Where Rule G fails to address a procedural issue that arises out of a civil forfeiture action, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply. Id. Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule 37") provides guidance as to when sanctions may be imposed for discovery failures, and the type of sanctions a court may impose. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37.

It is long established that a trial court has discretion to "choose appropriate sanctions when a party does not comply with procedural rules." United States v. One 1987 BMW 325, 985 F.2d 665, 657 (1st Cir. 1993); see also Jensen v. Frank, 912 F.2d 517, 524 (1st Cir. 1990) (sanctions, including sanctions for failure to comply with discovery order, is "a matter for the district court's discretion.").

B. Standing in a Civil Forfeiture Action

"Standing is a threshold consideration in all cases, including civil forfeiture cases." United States v. One-Sixth Share of James J. Bulger in All Present and Future Proceeds of Mass Million Lottery Ticket No. M246233, 326 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 2003). In a civil forfeiture case, a claimant must have both statutory standing and Article III standing (often described as "constitutional standing") to sustain its claim. Id. To establish statutory standing in a civil forfeiture claim, a claimant must comply with the statute that confers on the claimant its right to file a claim, including relevant provisions of the Supplemental Rules. Id. at 40-41. As for constitutional standing, a claimant must demonstrate an ownership or possessory interest in the defendant property. Id. at 41.

III. Parties' Arguments

A. Plaintiff

Plaintiff avers that claimants' failure to answer plaintiff's Rule G(6) interrogatories² allows plaintiff to move to strike claimants' claims and answer pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i). ECF No. 28 at 3. Plaintiff contends that since claimants' answer and claims should be stricken for their failure to answer the interrogatories, and no other claims have been made by persons other than claimants, default judgment should be entered accordingly. Id.

B. Claimants

Claimants do not dispute that they have failed to answer the interrogatories timely. Nonetheless, claimants assert in the opposition that service of their answers to the interrogatories makes plaintiff's motion to strike moot. ECF No. 30 at 2. Furthermore, claimants state that sanctions should not be imposed because plaintiff did not allege that it suffered any prejudice as a result of claimants' failure to answer the interrogatories timely, nor did plaintiff file a motion to compel under Rule 37(a). Id. at 3.

Lastly, claimants aver that the interrogatories were improper, as answering the same would threaten claimants' Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Id. at 4-7. In fact, a significant portion of claimants' opposition discusses the impropriety of the interrogatories due to alleged Fifth Amendment violations, and the merit of claimants' claims on the defendant vessel. Id. at 4-7.

IV. Discussion

A. Discovery Sanction under Supplemental Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A)

Rule G(6)(a) of the Supplemental Rules allows the government to serve special interrogatories, which must be limited to the claimant's identity and relationship to the defendant property, on a claimant. Supp. R. Adm. or Mar. Cl. & Asset Forfeiture Actions G(6)(a). The purpose of Rule G(6)(a) is to prevent a person who has no colorable claims over defendant property from proceeding with his claim. United States v. 2007 33' Hydra Sport Vessel, 59 F. Supp. 3d 417, 419 (D.P.R. 2014). A claimant must answer the government's special interrogatories within 21 days after the same are served. Supp. R. Adm. Or Mar. Cl. & Asset Forfeiture Actions G(6)(b). Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A) of the Supplemental Rule permits the government to move to strike a claim or an answer if a claimant fails to comply with Rule G(6). Supp. R. Adm. Or Mar. Cl. & Asset Forfeiture Actions G(8)(c)(i)(A).

Claimants' do not dispute their failure to answer the interrogatories timely. On November 12, 2014, plaintiff served the Rule G(6) interrogatories on claimants. ECF No. 28 at 2. Under Rule G(6), claimants had until December 3, 2014 to answer the interrogatories. While claimants filed a motion for an extension to answer the interrogatories on December 4, 2014, said motion was filed after the 21 day deadline to answer had passed. ECF No. 23. Thus, claimants failed to comply with the deadline set out by Rule G(6).

Despite claimants' non-compliance with Rule G(6), plaintiff did not object to claimants' first motion for extension, and this Court granted said motion in the interest of resolving this matter on its merits rather than through discovery sanctions. ECF No. 24. Claimants were ordered to answer the interrogatories by January 5, 2015, a date requested by claimants in their first motion for extension. ECF Nos. 23, 24. Claimants were forewarned that no further extensions would be granted. ECF No. 24. On January 7, 2015, two days after the deadline requested by claimants and ordered by the Court had passed, claimants filed the second motion for extension ECF No. 25. In the second motion for extension, claimants requested an additional 8 days to answer the interrogatories. Id. Thus, claimants had once again failed to answer the interrogatories timely and failed to comply with the Court's discovery order.

As the Court had already warned claimants that they would not receive any additional extension, and claimants did not state in the second motion for extension any extenuating circumstances that would move this Court to revisit its decision, the Court denied claimants' second motion for extension. ECF No. 26. Since claimants repeatedly failed to comply with Rule G(6) despite given an additional month to do so, plaintiff was well within its right to file a motion to strike claimants' answer and claims pursuant to Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A).

Although plaintiff properly filed the motion to strike claimants' answer and claims under Rule G(8)(c)(i)(A), Rule G(8) does not explicitly state when such a motion should be granted. Except for a brief note in the Advisory stating that "[n]ot every failure to respond to [Rule G](6)...