Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Ramirez, 1:16-CR-00128 LJO-SKO. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170221d09 Visitors: 32
Filed: Feb. 17, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 17, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, and through their respective attorneys of record herein, that the status conference now set for February 22, 2017, may be continued to April 3, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. The reason for the continuance is to seek an amended protective order from the district court to permit the defendant greater access to discovery materials. Specifically, defense
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, and through their respective attorneys of record herein, that the status conference now set for February 22, 2017, may be continued to April 3, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.

The reason for the continuance is to seek an amended protective order from the district court to permit the defendant greater access to discovery materials. Specifically, defense counsel has reviewed and identified certain discovery he seeks to provide to the defendant in redacted form, which currently is impermissible under the current protective order. The parties have conferred and agree that defense investigation and discussion of potential resolution of the case will be expedited in the event the district court grants the parties' anticipated filing of a stipulation for an amended protective order.

The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and that the delay from the continuance shall be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

After careful review of the most recent stipulation to continue status conference filed in this case, as well as the entire procedural history of this case, the parties' request to continue the status conference is DENIED.

The Court notes that this defendant was indicted and the case was filed on August 12, 2016, more than six months ago. The Court further notes that there have been three status conferences in this case.

At the third status conference on December 5, 2016, the court ordered the parties to come to court with a mutually agreeable trial date if the matter is not resolved by the February 21, 2017, status conference. Notwithstanding the court's order, the parties have filed yet another request for continuance of the status conference by stipulation.

The parties shall appear at the status conference set for February 21, 2017. Counsel are to bring their trial calendars to the hearing, and should meet and confer before the hearing to agree on a trial date. The court will consider the defense's need for review of the additional discovery material pursuant to an amended protective order in setting the trial date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer