UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-16499

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00158- v. MMD-CSD $1,106,775.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, OPINION

Defendant-Appellant,

and OAK PORCELLI,

Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 14, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed March 11, 2025 2 USA V. $1,106,775.00 IN US CURRENCY

Before: Kenneth K. Lee and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges, and John R. Tunheim, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Lee; Dissent by Judge Bress

SUMMARY **

Civil Forfeiture

The panel affirmed the district court’s orders (1) striking Oak Porcelli’s claim opposing the United States government’s complaint for civil forfeiture against $1,106,775 in currency that Drug Enforcement Agency officers seized following Porcelli’s traffic stop; and (2) granting the government a default judgment of civil forfeiture against the currency. Porcelli challenged the government’s authority to seize the currency, demanded its return, and moved to suppress evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing lack of probable cause to stop him or search his vehicle. After Porcelli filed his claim, the government served him with interrogatories, pursuant to Supplemental Rule of Civil Procedure G(6) for Forfeiture Actions in Rem, asking him, among other things, to describe how he obtained the money. Despite repeated orders, Porcelli refused to answer * The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. USA V. $1,106,775.00 IN US CURRENCY 3

the interrogatories fully, asserting that he had already established Article III standing at the pleading stage by claiming ownership. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking Porcelli’s claim asserting ownership when he repeatedly refused to amend his vague interrogatory responses, even though it would not have been burdensome to provide additional information and the government’s own evidence cast doubt on his ownership. Pursuant to Rule G(6) and this court’s case law, the government can seek narrow discovery about a claimant’s standing, including serving special interrogatories about the claimant’s “relationship” to the seized money “at any time” during discovery after a claim is filed, not just at the pleading stage. While the government ultimately has the burden under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act to show by a preponderance of evidence that the money was subject to forfeiture, Porcelli still had a discovery obligation under Rule G(6) to provide some evidence that he has Article III standing to claim the money. The panel held that the district court did not have to rule on Porcelli’s pending motion to suppress before ruling on the government’s Rule G(8) motion to strike. Dissenting, Judge Bress stated that Porcelli sufficiently responded to the Rule G(6) interrogatories about his standing, at least enough to avoid the total dismissal of his claim at the very beginning of the case. Although this may seem like a technical case about discovery responses, it portends a significant and ill-founded change in how civil asset forfeiture proceedings will be conducted and is a serious overextension of the Supplemental Rule G(6) interrogatory device for civil forfe