Filed: May 22, 2012
Latest Update: May 22, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. Defendant Larry Mason has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 44), because his counsel needs additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Larry Mason's motion to continue, (filing no. 44), is granted. 2) As to all defendants , pret
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge. Defendant Larry Mason has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 44), because his counsel needs additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted. IT IS ORDERED: 1) Defendant Larry Mason's motion to continue, (filing no. 44), is granted. 2) As to all defendants , pretr..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHERYL R. ZWART, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Larry Mason has moved to continue the pretrial motion deadline, (filing no. 44), because his counsel needs additional time to fully review the discovery received before deciding if pretrial motions should be filed. Based on the showing set forth in the motion, the court finds the motion should be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1) Defendant Larry Mason's motion to continue, (filing no. 44), is granted.
2) As to all defendants, pretrial motions and briefs shall be filed on or before June 11, 2012.
3) Trial of this case remains set to commence on June 26, 2012.
4) The ends of justice served by granting the motion to continue outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, and the additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motion, the time between today and June 11, 2012, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, for the reason that the parties require additional time to adequately prepare the case, taking into consideration due diligence of counsel, the novelty and complexity of the case, and the fact that the failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
