N.D.Cal.: Gov’t didn’t satisfy burden not to disclose under 41(g) on IRS SW

Property lawfully seized by an IRS search warrant is subject to return under Rule 41(g). Defendant was indicted in W.D. Tex. and sued in W.D. Ky. The government did not satisfy its burden that the information qualified as “return information.” The government is ordered to produce in 14 days or show why it shouldn’t in 5 days. In re 1015 E. Cliff Drive (Gourmet Express, LLC v. United States), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146343 (N.D. Cal. October 9, 2013):

“[T]he district court is required to balance four discretionary factors to determine whether to allow the government to retain the property, order it returned or … craft a compromise solution that seeks to accommodate the interests of all parties.” Id. at 1173. “These factors include: 1) whether the Government displayed a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the movant; 2) whether the movant has an individual interest in and need for the property he wants returned; 3) whether the movant would be irreparably injured by denying return of the property; and 4) whether the movant has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance.” Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1993).

The court must consider these factors as a preliminary matter before assuming jurisdiction and determining the motion on the merits. “[A] district court must exercise ‘caution and restraint’ before assuming jurisdiction.” Id. at 324. (quoting Kitty’s East v. United States, 905 F.2d 1367, 1370 (10th Cir. 1990). “If the ‘balance of equities tilts in favor of reaching the merits’ of the Rule 41(g) motion, the district court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to entertain the motion.” United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Ramsden, 2 F.3d at 326).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.