United States v. Lawrence J. Semenza II

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01937
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 UNITED STATES, Case No. 2:25-cv-01937-ART-NJK 5 Plaintiff, ORDER TO OPEN DISCOVERY AND 6 v. SET EVIDENTIARY HEARING

7 LAWRENCE J. SEMENZA II, (ECF Nos. 19, 36)

8 Defendant.

9 This case concerns a writ of ne exeat republica, issued upon the 10 Government’s showing that Defendant Lawrence J. Semenza II was likely to go 11 abroad and frustrate collection of his substantial tax liabilities. (ECF No. 5.) The 12 writ detains him within the jurisdiction of this Court. (Id.) Mr. Semenza moved to 13 quash the writ (ECF No. 8), and his motion was denied. (ECF No. 25.) The 14 Government now moves to open discovery, pursuing evidence to sustain the writ 15 and to collect on Mr. Semenza’s debts. (ECF No. 19.) Mr. Semenza opposes 16 opening discovery and moves to set an evidentiary hearing no later than 17 December 12, 2025. (ECF Nos. 30, 36.) 18 The Court permits discovery and sets an evidentiary hearing on January 19 29, 2026. 20

21 Background 22 The instant case is the most recent of several proceedings involving Mr. 23 Semenza’s outstanding tax liabilities. In 2014, Mr. Semenza was criminally 24 prosecuted in this district on three counts of failing to file his tax returns for the 25 years 2007, 2008, and 2009. 26 U.S.C. § 7203; United States v. Semenza, 2:14- 26 CR-271-JCM-PAL-1 (“Criminal Case”). He pled guilty and was sentenced to a total 27 of 18 months in custody and ordered to pay $290,009 in restitution. (Criminal 28 1 Case ECF Nos. 2, 6, 22.) Mr. Semenza has also appeared in tax court several 2 times from 2011 to 2017, both in his individual capacity and on behalf of his law 3 firm. 4 The present case relates closely to another pending action in which the 5 Government seeks to reduce to judgment Mr. Semenza’s outstanding tax 6 assessments for tax years 2001 to 2015, and to seize and apply the value of his 7 former home to the debt. United States v. Semenza, 2:22-CV-2059-JAD-NJK 8 (“Related Case”) (Related Case ECF No. 1). On May 16, 2025, Chief Judge Gordon 9 granted the Government partial summary judgment on the amount of Mr. 10 Semenza’s debt, determining that his and his deceased wife’s personal tax 11 liabilities amounted to $1,241,917. (Related Case ECF No. 76.) The court clarified 12 that it had not entered judgment on this issue and would not unless the 13 Government moved for entry of partial judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), 14 which the Government has not yet done. (Id.) 15 In anticipation of a bench trial on the remaining claims relating to Mr. 16 Semenza’s former residence, the Government moved to open the present case 17 under seal and for an ex parte writ of ne exeat republica. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) The 18 Government argued that the writ was justified because if Mr. Semenza returned 19 to his home in Portugal after testifying at the trial, the Government may be unable 20 to effectuate collection of its summary judgment order. (ECF No. 2.) Chief Judge 21 Gordon granted the writ on October 9, 2025. (ECF No. 5.) 22 The trial regarding Mr. Semenza’s former home began on October 20, 2025. 23 (Related Case ECF No. 113.) In the afternoon of the first day, Mr. Semenza, still 24 unaware of the writ, appeared and gave testimony. (Related Case ECF No. 120.) 25 After he had testified for about two hours, U.S. Marshals arrested him. (Id.) Mr. 26 Semenza immediately had a preliminary hearing on the writ, at which it was 27 agreed that he would be released from custody after turning over his passports 28 1 to the U.S. Marshal. (Id.) After that, Mr. Semenza was confined to the jurisdiction 2 of the Court except by leave of court order. (ECF No. 5.) 3 Three days later, on Mr. Semenza’s motion, Chief Judge Gordon recused 4 himself from both the Related Case and the instant case on the grounds that the 5 unnoticed mid-hearing execution of the writ created an appearance of 6 impropriety. (Related Case ECF No. 125.) Mr. Semenza then moved to quash the 7 writ. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) His motion was denied at the hearing of November 7, 2025. 8 (ECF No. 25.) The Court instructed the Government to supplement its motion to 9 open discovery, and initially set an evidentiary hearing for December 4, 2025, at 10 which the Government would bear the burden to show that the writ should 11 remain in force. (ECF Nos. 25, 26.) The Government moved to continue the 12 hearing (ECF No. 32), the continuance was granted, and the hearing date was 13 vacated. (ECF No. 35.) Shortly afterward, Mr. Semenza filed an emergency motion 14 to reset the evidentiary hearing promptly, requesting that it take place by 15 December 12, 2025. (ECF No. 36.) 16 17 Discussion 18 The writ of ne exeat republica is form of injunctive relief that “restrains the 19 defendant from leaving the jurisdiction in order to compel feasance to the 20 sovereign.” United States v. Mathewson, No. 92-1054-CIV-DAVIS, 1993 WL 21 113434, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 1993); see United States v. Robbins, 235 F. Supp. 22 353, 356 (E.D. Ark. 1964). The Internal Revenue Code gives district courts the 23 power to issue the writ “as may be necessary or appropriate for the enforcement 24 of the internal revenue laws.” 26 U.S.C. § 7402(a). Modern courts have analogized 25 the writ to a preliminary injunction, and granted the writ upon the Government’s 26 showing that “(1) [there is] a substantial likelihood the movant will succeed on 27 the merits; (2) the movant will suffer an irreparable injury if the injunction is not 28 issued; (3) the potential injury to the movant outweighs the potential harm to the 1 opposing party; and (4) the injunction would not disserve the public interest.” 2 Mathewson, 1993 WL 113434, at *2 (internal citations omitted). 3 A. Courts permit writ-related discovery. 4 Caselaw clearly establishes that discovery is an allowable purpose of the 5 writ. In 1971, the Seventh Circuit became the first to opine that “[i]n an 6 appropriate case, the detention of a citizen for a limited time…might be justified” 7 for the purpose of enabling “the Government to have effective discovery, both on 8 issues of liability and with respect to the location, value, and legal status of [that 9 citizen’s] property.” United States v. Shaheen, 445 F.2d 6, 12 (7th Cir. 1971). 10 Since Shaheen, discovery has been ordered in four cases briefed by the 11 parties. Mathewson, 1993 WL 113434, at *3; United States v. Barrett, No. 10-CV- 12 02130-RBJ, 2014 WL 321141, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2014); United States v. 13 Kolade, No. 3:22-CV-00459-KAD, 2025 WL 521095, at *1 (D. Conn. Feb. 18, 14 2025); United States v. Lipper, No. C-81-1222-RPA, 1981 WL 1762, at *7 (N.D. 15 Cal. Mar. 25, 1981). In all four cases, the courts ordered discovery at the same 16 time as they issued or declined to quash the writ, and none of them conducted a 17 separate analysis that was specific to discovery. See, e.g. Mathewson, 1993 WL 18 113434 at *3; Barrett, 2014 WL 321141, at *1; Kolade, 2025 WL 521095, at *1; 19 Lipper, 1981 WL 1762, at *7. These courts ordered production of the defendant’s 20 “books and records” as part of the writ itself. See, e.g. Kolade, 2025 WL 521095, 21 at *1 (granting writ and requiring defendants to “produce to the United States all 22 books and records of their assets, to determine the value and extent of their 23 assets, wherever located and however held”); Barrett, 2014 WL 321141, at *1 24 (granting writ and requiring defendants to “produce all books and records of their 25 assets…”). Such orders to produce records, and other decisions authorizing 26 specific discovery, indicate that discovery is deemed necessary to effectuating the 27 purposes of the writ. See, e.g. Lipper, 1981 WL 1762, at *7 (“The United States 28 has additionally shown that its efforts to ascertain and seek the satisfaction of 1 Mr. Lipper's tax liabilities would clearly be frustrated unless the court grants its 2 request for the writ.”) (emphasis added). 3 B. Discovery is not premature. 4 Mr. Semenza objects that collections discovery is premature because in the 5 Related Case, the partial summary judgment order on the amount of his liability 6 has not been reduced to judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69. Normally, collections 7 discovery is only authorized post-judgment, while pre-judgment discovery is 8 limited to matters relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of 9 the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 69, 26(b)(1). Mr. Semenza argues that the discovery the 10 Government seeks is for the purpose of collection, not relevant to a claim or 11 defense, and therefore not allowed pre-judgment. Mr. Semenza does not account 12 for the fact that courts dealing with the writ in the past have opened writ-related 13 discovery without a final judgment. 14 Of the four cases briefed by the parties that deal with writ-related discovery, 15 in three of them the court appears to have permitted discovery without or before 16 a final judgment on the collection amount. The Lipper and Mathewson courts 17 ordered and conducted discovery without mention of a final judgment, either in 18 the order or on the docket. See Lipper, 1981 WL 1762, at *4-5 (ordering discovery 19 pre-judgment); Mathewson, 1993 WL 113434, at *1 (same). In Mathewson, the 20 court ordered the writ and discovery based on a stipulated settlement of the 21 debtor’s amount of liability. 1993 WL 113434, at *1. In Lipper, the Internal 22 Revenue Service’s investigations provided evidence supporting the Government’s 23 calculations of the amount of the debt. 1981 WL 1762, at *5. In Barrett. the Court 24 granted the writ and permitted discovery prior to entry of default judgment based 25 on investigators’ proffered evidence of the outstanding liability. 2014 WL 321141, 26 at *2. Only in Kolade was there already a final judgment when the writ was 27 granted and discovery opened. 2025 WL 521095, at *1. Mr. Semenza has not 28 identified a case where discovery was denied at this stage. 1 As in Lipper, Mathewson, and Barrett, the Government here has shown that 2 the taxpayer owes a debt, and that the other requirements for justifying 3 temporary restraint under the writ are met. In granting the writ, Chief Judge 4 Gordon found that the owing tax debt is $1,241,917.02 plus interest. (ECF No. 5 5 (citing Related Case ECF No. 76).) Here as in other cases, the presence or absence 6 of a final judgment is not material to the decision to open discovery. 7 C. One purpose of discovery is to decide if the writ should continue. 8 Mr. Semenza also argues that the Government has not met its burden to 9 show that his domestic assets are insufficient to satisfy his debts. (ECF No. 30.) 10 The Government was not required to conclusively establish that his domestic 11 assets were insufficient before obtaining the writ. Cf. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. 12 Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (requiring that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary 13 injunction show that they are merely “likely” to suffer irreparable harm in the 14 absence of relief). More precisely, the Government was required show that it 15 would likely suffer irreparable injury if he was not restrained under the writ. See 16 Mathewson, 1993 WL 113434, at *2 (evaluating writ under preliminary injunction 17 standard). In support of the writ, the Government showed that Mr. Semenza owed 18 taxes, transferred cash and personal property abroad, lived overseas, and that 19 efforts to find and collect his domestic assets have had limited success. (ECF No. 20 2.) 21 As the Government acknowledges, one purpose of discovery is to identify 22 whether it can meet its burden of showing that the writ should be maintained:

23 The purpose of discovery in this case is to determine whether the writ 24 should continue because Mr. Semenza has foreign assets, the collection of which would be jeopardized without the writ. In order to make this 25 determination, the Court needs an accurate picture of Mr. Semenza’s current financial condition, both his foreign assets (to see what can and 26 should be repatriated) and his domestic assets (to see if there are sufficient sources of domestic collection to render the writ unnecessary). 27

28 1 (ECF No. 31 at 2.) Discovery is necessary so that Mr. Semenza may have a 2 meaningful evidentiary hearing, where the Government will have the burden to 3 show that Mr. Semenza’s domestic assets are insufficient to satisfy his debts, 4 and, if so, that his foreign assets, if any, can and should be repatriated to be 5 applied to his debt. 6 D. The meet-and-confer rule is not grounds for denying discovery. 7 Mr. Semenza also argues that the Government failed to meet its obligation 8 under LR 26-6(c) to meet and confer with him before submitting the motion to 9 open discovery. (ECF No. 30.) Read as a whole, LR 26-6 appears to deal with 10 “discovery disputes” regarding specific discovery requests, not motions to open 11 discovery. Even assuming the meet and confer requirement applies, the Court 12 deems it satisfied by the Government’s outreach to Mr. Semenza’s counsel, who 13 declined to agree to open discovery. (ECF No. 19-1.) 14 15 Mr. Semenza’s Motion to Set Evidentiary Hearing is granted in part. 16 Mr. Semenza has moved to set an evidentiary hearing “for no later than 17 December 12, 2025.” (ECF No. 36.) Mr. Semenza has been detained under the 18 writ since October 20, 2025, and he is entitled to a prompt evidentiary hearing 19 at which the Government has the burden of proving that the writ should 20 continue. Shaheen, 445 F.2d at 10. Recognizing that the writ is an extraordinary 21 restraint on a taxpayer’s liberty, other courts have permitted discovery on an 22 expedited basis ranging from 20 to 120 days. Lipper, 1981 WL 1762, at *6 23 (limiting discovery to 120 days absent a showing of good cause); Mathewson, 24 1993 WL 113434, at *3 (establishing a 20-day discovery period). Under the 25 particular circumstances of this case, a short discovery period will provide the 26 Government with sufficient opportunity to discover evidence showing why the 27 writ should continue, and appropriately limits unnecessary delay. While a useful 28 1 || evidentiary hearing cannot take place by December 12, it can be held in relatively 2 || short order. 3 || IV. Conclusion 5 It is therefore ordered that the Government’s Motion to Open Collection 6 || Discovery (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED. 7 It is furthermore ordered that Mr. Semenza’s Emergency Motion to Set 8 || Evidentiary Hearing (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 9 It is furthermore ordered that discovery will be opened from the date of this 10 || order until January 16, 2026. 11 It is furthermore ordered that an evidentiary hearing will be set for January 12 || 29, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. 13 14 DATED: December 10, 2025 i fu. Rowsad Ter 16 17 ANNER.TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28