United States v. Ruimi

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01576-RAJ Plaintiff, 12 ORDER v. YORAM RUIMI, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte following receipt of the Government’s Response to a prior Order issued in this case. Dkt. # 67.

On September 24, 2024, the Court signed a Proposed Order submitted by the parties providing that it would enter default judgment against Defendant once he complied with a prior Order requiring him to submit pertinent bank records. Dkt. # 62 at 3. The Status Report indicated that while Defendant’s counsel had produced everything in its possession, it appeared Defendant had no intention of producing the records ordered by the Court. Dkt. # 63 at 3.

The Government “respectfully [asked] the Court to take whatever steps it [deemed] appropriate to address [Defendant]’s continued non-compliance with its orders.” Id. The Court did not entertain such a request. See Couturier v. Am. Invsco Corp., No. 2:12-cv- 01104-APG-NJK, 2013 WL 4499008, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 20, 2013) (“[a] judge is the impartial umpire of legal battles, not a party’s attorney. He is neither required to hunt down arguments the parties keep camouflaged, nor required to address perfunctory and undeveloped arguments.”). However, the Court recognized the need to address this issue and the Government’s compliance with its prior orders. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Government to submit a proposed order outlining a potential remedy for Defendant’s non-compliance. The Government subsequently submitted its proposed order. Dkt. # 67.

9 As detailed in the Court’s orders of January 9, 2024 (Dkt. # 26), June 5, 2024 (Dkt.

10 # 43), September 24, 2024 (Dkt. # 62), and November 15, 2024 (Dkt. # 65), and for the reasons stated therein, the Court will issue judgment against Defendant Yoram Ruimi and in favor of the United States.

Additionally, the United States is permitted to serve any discovery it may issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 upon Defendant Yoram Ruimi via email at [email protected]. Such service by email will be valid under the Federal Rules and Mr. Ruimi may not refuse to provide responses to any such requests because they were served via email.

17 Finally, the Court grants permission to the attorneys from Roberts & Holland LLP and Ellis Li & McKinstry to withdraw as counsel for Defendant.

Dated this 11th day of June, 2025.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones 23 United States District Judge