U.S. v. PARNELL, 1:13-CR-12 (WLS). (2013)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20130812574
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 08, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2013
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court are Stewart Parnell's and Samuel Lightsey's Motions to Join Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motions (Docs. 88, 89) and Mary Wilkerson's Motion to Compel Meaningful Discovery (Doc. 78) and her Motion to Suppress (Doc. 90). All of these motions violate Local Criminal Rule 47.1, which provides: "Unless the assigned judge prescribes otherwise, every motion filed in a criminal proceeding shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law citing supporting
Summary: ORDER W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge. Before the Court are Stewart Parnell's and Samuel Lightsey's Motions to Join Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motions (Docs. 88, 89) and Mary Wilkerson's Motion to Compel Meaningful Discovery (Doc. 78) and her Motion to Suppress (Doc. 90). All of these motions violate Local Criminal Rule 47.1, which provides: "Unless the assigned judge prescribes otherwise, every motion filed in a criminal proceeding shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law citing supporting ..
More
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, District Judge.
Before the Court are Stewart Parnell's and Samuel Lightsey's Motions to Join Defendant Mary Wilkerson's Motions (Docs. 88, 89) and Mary Wilkerson's Motion to Compel Meaningful Discovery (Doc. 78) and her Motion to Suppress (Doc. 90). All of these motions violate Local Criminal Rule 47.1, which provides: "Unless the assigned judge prescribes otherwise, every motion filed in a criminal proceeding shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities." M.D. Ga. L. Crim. R. 47.1. It is neither the Court's nor the Government's job to unearth the legal bases for the defendant's motions. To the extent a motion requires the Court's adjudication, it must be accompanied by a memorandum of law specific to the pleader.
Therefore, Parnell's and Lightsey's Motions (Doc. 88, 89) to Join are DENIED. Wilkerson's Motion to Compel Meaningful Discovery (Doc. 78) and Motion to Suppress (Doc. 90) are DENIED without prejudice, consistent with the findings here and those described in the contemporaneous order regarding Wilkerson's other motions. Should the Parties need additional time to file preliminary motions, the Court will entertain a written motion to modify the scheduling order.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
