Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Pieracci, 1:15-cr-00165 DAD/BAM. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190709703 Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN ADVANCE OF AUGUST 5, 2019 HEARING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS; ORDER DALE A. DROZD , District Judge . THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Michael W. Berdinella, counsel for Defendant Scott Allen Pieracci ("defendant"), that this action's briefing schedule in advance of the August 5, 2019 hearing on pretrial motions be slightly modified a
More

STIPULATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE IN ADVANCE OF AUGUST 5, 2019 HEARING ON PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS; ORDER

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Michael W. Berdinella, counsel for Defendant Scott Allen Pieracci ("defendant"), that this action's briefing schedule in advance of the August 5, 2019 hearing on pretrial motions be slightly modified as set forth below. The parties also ask the court to endorse this stipulation by way of formal order.

Significantly, the parties do not seek to modify the August 5, 2019 hearing date. The parties likewise do not seek any modification to this case's time exclusion calculations, in that time has already been ordered excluded through the November 5, 2019 trial date. Doc. 47.

Filing Current Deadline Modified Deadline Opposition Briefs July 8, 2019 July 11, 2019 Reply Briefs July 15, 2019 July 18, 2019 Hearing August 5, 2019 No change

The parties base this stipulation on good cause: To explain, since the parties stipulated to the current briefing schedule that the court endorsed by way of formal order on June 3, 2019 (Doc. 52), counsel for the government was assigned to two time-intensive, reactive sex trafficking investigations that were previously unforeseen. One of these cases has since been indicted (United States v. McGriff, Case No. 1:19-cr-133 LJO), and the other remains an active investigation. Accordingly, this short extension is necessary.

For the above stated reasons, the stipulated modifications to the above briefing schedule will enable the parties to timely file opposition briefs and any necessary reply briefs to previously filed pretrial motions, while likewise keeping the hearing date regarding the same. It will therefore conserve time and resources both for the parties and the court.

McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Dated: July 7, 2019 By: /s/ Brian W. Enos Brian W. Enos Assistant U.S. Attorney (As auth. 7/7/19) Dated: July 7, 2019 /s/ Michael W. Berdinella Michael W. Berdinella, Esq. Attorney for Defendant

ORDER

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