What is the burden of proving a motion for a restraining order against the government?

All of the cases which have addressed the question of the nature of a hearing relating to such restraining orders have either implicitly or explicitly assumed that the Government bears the burden of proof See United States v. Long, 654 F.2d at 915 ("Further, the restraining order was issued only after a full hearing in which the government demonstrated that it was likely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane is subject to forfeiture."). United States v. Bello, 470 F.Supp. 723, 724 (D.C.S.D.Cal.1979) ("The government has made a sufficient showing that the restraining order is necessary."; United States v. Mandel, 408 F.Supp. 679, 683 (D.C. D.Md.1976) ("In the instant case this standard would seem to require the government to demonstrate that it is likely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.". This uniform determination is wholly understandable.

The general rule is that the proponent of a motion bears the burden of

[538 F. Supp. 246]

proof. See 6 Orfield, Criminal Procedure Under the Federal Rules 47.9 at p. 319 (1967), and see Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co., 523 F.Supp. 148 (D.C.E.D.Cal.1981). This rule is generally applied to motions for injunctive relief.⁹

[538 F. Supp. 246]