Free Response in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

l · I . . e artment of Justice · i
l Us D P
:5 l
United States Attomey I
‘ . District of Arizona · . .
i A Two Renaissance Square ' Main: (602) 514-7500
I 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Main FAX· (602) 514-7693
. » Phoenbc, Arizona 85004-4408 FAX· (602} 514-7537
I November 21, 2005
Craig~A. Stokes - ‘ V
Santos & Stokes LLP . » ‘
3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 225 V _
San Antonio, Texas 78218 · _
‘ _ Via facsimile to 2-10 822-5595 I . _ l
Cynthia E. Orr ‘
Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley · .
310 S. St. Mary’s Street, Suite 2900 _ . ‘ c s
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3117 ` i
‘ Via facsimile to 210 226-8367 _
· Re: US. v. Lear Jet, Model 31 A, Serial number 31 A-224 , et al ` I
D CIV—04-03 63-PHX-J WS
Dear Cynthia and Craig: .
This letter is in response to Craig’s letter of November 17, 2005. Please find enclosed an additional
copy of the Scheduling Order entered in this case on or about March 1, 2004. While I will make no
comment upon whether your oversight is intentional or ignorant, I will comment upon your timing. I find
it astounding that on the approximate date that your discovery is due you would presume to suggest that the i
discovery request and notice of deposition are not in compliance with the Federal Rules. This is particularly
egregious when it is considered that the government has been engaged in informal discovery and has
provided virtually everything you and your investigator have requested without resorting to the fonnal
\ discovery procedures. As _Cynthia will recall, that procedure was agreed to on the occasion of the visit to
our offices in Phoenix, when she and Jerry Goldstein were accompanied by your client and his Mexican ‘
attorneys. You are also aware that virtually everything in the way of discovery which you have provided ~
has been information which had already been obtained by the investigators. That is, you have failed tokeep
· your promises in any respect with regard to the production of financial records which demonstrate a 1
legitimate source ofthe ftmds identified in the complaint. Your client and his attomeys have assured us that
l the funds came only from sources controlled by Abed and not &om Ross Castillo. To date, we have been
provided with none of that evidence, despite your representations in the Answer filed on behalf of Abed and
his various interests. A 1 I
With respect to your reliance upon Rule 26, if you had inquired I would have directed you to the
enclosed Scheduling Order entered by the Court in this action. There exists a standing rule in the District
of Arizona which designates all forfeiture matters as expedited track cases. See the Scheduling Order.-
Stated another way, Rule 26(d) is superceded by the Scheduling Order. The scheduling order dispenses with
- the procedures of mandatory disclosures and meetings, and sets out an expedited procedure. For the record,
I will note that it is inconceivable that you would presume to rely upon this provision when you have never
A _ previously attempted to comply with any aspect of the Rule 26, such as mandatory disclosure.
Case 2:04—cv—00363—JWS ~ Document 140-3 Filed 11/23/2005 . Page 1 of 2

Letter to Craig A. Stokes & Cynthia E. Orr l I I
US. v. Lear Jet, Model 3] A, I
Page 2 , `
The "scheduling order" practice and procedure has been the law in this District for years and Vi
there have been no cases, to my knowledge, where a protective order has been granted on the basis
you outline. Please be advised that the scheduling order procedure is intended by the Courts to be
a Standing Order which removes forfeiture cases from the Rule 26 procedures. Pursuing aprotective
. order under the present circumstances is probably frivolous and could only be pursued in bad faith. '
` Therefore, I will not withdraw the requests and insist that the discovery be provided as I
scheduled. While Imight have been sympathetic to a request for additional time where a good faith ‘
effort has been made to produce the discovery requested, I am not so inclined in this case. It is
. apparent that you have continued to request informal discovery &om the government, provide lip i _,
service to our requests, while never intending to comply with the formal discovery requests. In
. addition, during the past month other parties to this action have made arrangements to attend the
I deposition and we will not reschedule the deposition. The information requested in the discovery
is reasonable, must have been available to you when you drafted the Answer, has been the subject
of our informal requests for months, and must be timely provided prior to the deposition. .The fact
` V that you have delayed a month in sending this letter of November 17, 2005, will not serve as an
excuse for failure to prepare for the discovery obligations which are clearly due and easily prepared. _
In fact, given your approach, this information would have been required to have been Vdisgorged ,
months ago. Your discovery response is due immediately. Pailure to comply will result ir1
appropriate requests for sanctions. ~ A I _
pp A _ p pp Sincerely yours, p p p p _ A p p pp p
A PAUL K. CHARLTON · A A
_ · United States Attorney ‘
l . Dis ' of Ariz a
l r A q , tt . Pixler . »
i Assistant United States Attorney
1 cc: Geofirey Young I . · I
I Lawson Pedigo
1 H I I ‘
Case 2:04-ci/-00363-JWS Document 140-3 Filed 11/23/2005 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 140-3

Filed 11/23/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:04-cv-00363-JWS

Document 140-3

Filed 11/23/2005

Page 2 of 2