UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SUM OF $70,990,605 et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Strike 79 Memorandum in Opposition

D.D.C.February 20, 2014

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 12-cv-01905 (RWR) ) SUM OF $70,990,605, ET AL., ) ) Defendants in rem. ) _________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO CLAIMANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE THE UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION TO CLAIMANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Comes now the Plaintiff, United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, and respectfully urges this Court to deny the Claimants’ Motion to Strike the United States’ Opposition to the Claimants’ Motion to Compel (ECF No. 80), because, as set forth below, the United States’ opposition brief was timely filed in accordance with Local Rule 7(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d). Accordingly, this Court should enter the attached order denying the Claimants’ frivolous motion. I. ARGUMENT In their motion, the Claimants argue, erroneously, that the United States’ brief in opposition should be struck because Local Civil Rule 7(b) states that an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to a motion “[w]ithin 14 days of the date of service” and the brief in opposition was not filed within 14 days of the Claimants’ motion. LCvR 7(b); (ECF No. 80, pages 1 and 2). However, Local Rule 7(b) must be read in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) which states “that [w]hen a party may or must act within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule Case 1:12-cv-01905-RWR Document 83 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 3 2 6(a).” Rule 6(a) sets forth the means by which time is calculated in Federal District Court. Thus, because the United States was served with the Claimants’ motion electronically pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 5(b)(2)(E), the United States had 14 days, plus an additional three, for a total of 17 days, to file and serve its opposition brief on the Claimants. The Claimants electronically filed their Motion to Compel on January 24, 2014 (ECF No. 80, page 2). Accordingly, the United States’ opposition brief was timely when it was filed by electronic means 17 days later on February 10, 2014. This is consistent with this Court’s clear precedent. See, e.g., Whitney v. United States, 251 F.R.D. 1, n.3 (2008) (adding three days to the LCvR 7(b) deadline for electronic filing); Jarvis v. Parker, 2013 WL 2406293 (2013) (Plaintiffs had “three (3) additional days, where service is made through electronic filing”); and Priority One Services, Inc. v. W & T Travel Services, LLC, 825 F.Supp.2d 43, n.9 (2011) (“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) adds three days in addition to the 14-day period listed in LCvR 7(b) if service is made electronically.”). In the reply brief incorporated into their Motion to Strike, the Claimants argue, incorrectly, that the United States has conceded several arguments and objections by failing to respond to them in its opposition brief (ECF No. 80, page 5). The arguments and objections purportedly conceded are a reiteration of the objections raised by the United States in response to the Claimants’ discovery request. To the extent that the United States’ did not further elaborate on these objections, it is because, as set forth in the United States’ opposition brief, they are not necessary to this Court’s consideration of the Claimants’ Motion to Compel. Case 1:12-cv-01905-RWR Document 83 Filed 02/20/14 Page 2 of 3 3 II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter the attached order denying the Claimants’ Motion to Strike the United States’ Opposition to the Claimants’ Motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, JAIKUMAR RAMASWAMY, CHIEF ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY LAUNDERING SECTION /s/Elizabeth A. Aloi DANIEL H. CLAMAN Assistant Deputy Chief ELIZABETH A. ALOI Trial Attorney Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 10100 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-1263 Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case 1:12-cv-01905-RWR Document 83 Filed 02/20/14 Page 3 of 3