Free Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-00468-JLS-POR

Document 17

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 1 of 2

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

KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney DAVID M. McNEES Special Assistant U.S. Attorney California State Bar No. 216612 Federal Office Building 880 Front Street, Room 6293 San Diego, California 92101-8893 Telephone: (619) 557-5979 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ONE 2006 NISSAN ARMADA SUV, ) CA LICENSE NO. 5RQF180, VIN ) VIN: 5N1AA08A76N717100, ITS TOOLS ) AND APPURTENANCES, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Civil No. 08cv0468-JLS(POR) JOINT DISCOVERY PLAN PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 26(f)

Pursuant to Rule 26(f), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Counsel for the parties jointly submit the following report. DISCOVERY PLAN 1. By order of the Court, the initial disclosure required by Rule 26(a) shall be provided

by August 4, 2008. By order of the Court, a case management conference will be held on August 11, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. 2. Per stipulation between the parties at the ENE conference, discovery has been

exchanged. The discovery is not complete, but the general documents that each side requested have been provided to each side to attempt to settle the case. No depositions, interrogatories, or anything of that nature have been scheduled or exchanged. Both parties are hoping to settle this case, and if that cannot be accomplished, discovery could be completed by October 31, 2008. //

Case 3:08-cv-00468-JLS-POR

Document 17

Filed 07/25/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

3. 4.

No changes in discovery rules are contemplated, except as noted above. No orders are contemplated pursuant to Rule 26(f)(4). CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Claimant Blanca Cardoza claims a legal interest in the defendant vehicle as owner. The defense to the forfeiture claimant will pursue is that she is an innocent owner of the vehicle, did not have knowledge of her son's narcotic trafficking activities, or that the vehicle would be used for such activities. NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING SETTLEMENT Counsel for the parties have met telephonically on two occasions and conferred regarding the potential for settlement of the case. Claimant has provided proof of ownership and purchase funds that were not related to narcotics. However, the government does not believe the vehicle should be returned in full based on an innocent owner theory, but is open to a negotiated return with a substantial percentage being retained by the government. DATED: July 23, 2008 Respectfully submitted, KAREN P. HEWITT United States Attorney s/ David M. McNees

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DATED: July 23, 2008 s/ Kirt J. Hopson KIRT J. HOPSON Attorney for Claimant DAVID M. McNEES Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

2

08cv0468