United States v. $215,587.22 in U.S. Currency Seized From Bank Account Number 100606401387436 Held in the Name of JJ Szlavik Companies, Inc. at Citizens Bank
Civil Action No. 2017-0853
| D.D.C. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Government filed a verified in rem forfeiture complaint (May 9, 2017) seeking $475,405.21 seized from nine bank accounts alleged to be held in the name of Joseph Szlavik or businesses he controlled; one Wells Fargo account was alleged as jointly held with Andrea Szlavik.
- Joseph and Andrea Szlavik filed verified ownership claims and moved to dismiss; the Government instead served Rule G(6) special interrogatories aimed at standing-related issues.
- The interrogatories sought detailed information about ownership, source of funds, relationships with businesses and associates, and other topics spanning all nine accounts.
- Claimants moved for a protective order, arguing (1) standing already established by the Government’s verified complaint and their verified claims, and (2) the interrogatories are overbroad and unduly burdensome.
- Court found the Government may serve Rule G(6) interrogatories after a claim is filed but concluded many questions were unnecessary here because the complaint and verified claims already acknowledge ownership and control of the accounts.
- Court granted the protective order, quashed the propounded interrogatories as drafted, but allowed the Government to re-issue narrowly tailored G(6) interrogatories limited to (a) current ownership/timing issues post-2013 and (b) any post-divorce agreements affecting ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government may propound Rule G(6) interrogatories after a verified claim is filed | Gvmt: Rule G(6) permits interrogatories “at any time after a claim is filed and before discovery closes” | Szlavik: Having met pleading-stage standing, G(6) inquiries are unnecessary now | Court: Government may serve G(6) interrogatories after a claim is filed, so timing alone does not bar them |
| Whether verified complaint and verified claims already establish Article III standing so G(6) questions are unnecessary | Gvmt: Still entitled to test standing via G(6) | Szlavik: Verified pleadings already allege ownership/control; low pleading-stage standard satisfied | Court: Ownership/control was pleaded by both sides; many standing-focused questions were unnecessary and properly stricken |
| Whether specific interrogatory topics (source of funds, business relationships, employment history) implicate standing or go beyond it | Gvmt: These topics relevant to ownership/control and legitimacy of claims | Szlavik: These probe merits and are unduly burdensome | Court: Questions about source of funds, employment, and many business-relationship queries exceed standing inquiry and were struck |
| Whether limited discovery on two identified standing concerns is permissible | Gvmt: Needs to verify current ownership post-2013 and whether post-divorce agreements altered ownership | Szlavik: Opposes broad probing into ownership changes and marital agreements | Court: Allowed tailored G(6) interrogatories addressing timing/current ownership and divorce-related ownership changes; otherwise quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars, 859 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (describing standing standards in civil forfeiture)
- United States v. Any & All Funds on Deposit in Account No. XXXXX-XXXXXXXX at HSBC Bank PLC, 87 F. Supp. 3d 163 (D.D.C. 2015) (pleading-stage proof of ownership/control suffices for initial standing)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing principles)
- United States v. Microsoft Corp., 165 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (district court’s protective-order good-cause standard)