Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. DAVIS, CR S-98-0114 KJM DAD P. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120518619 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 16, 2012
Latest Update: May 16, 2012
Summary: ORDER DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to the court's order filed on April 17, 2012, movant was ordered to file, either a motion for leave to amend the pending 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended 2255 motion, or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed on or before May 14, 2012. Although the court advised that no further extensions of time would be granted for that purpose, the parties have now submitted a stipulation and
More

ORDER

DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the court's order filed on April 17, 2012, movant was ordered to file, either a motion for leave to amend the pending § 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended § 2255 motion, or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed on or before May 14, 2012. Although the court advised that no further extensions of time would be granted for that purpose, the parties have now submitted a stipulation and proposed order granting movant an additional fourteen days to comply with the court's order. The stipulation notes the following reasons for the requested extension of time: (1) movant's counsel recently received two boxes of files from movant's prior attorneys which may contain discovery originally provided to the defense by the government and may provide substantial cost savings for photocopying the over 2000 pages of discovery provided during the trial, (2) additional time is needed to meet and confer with movant to determine if a complete set of trial exhibits and discovery has been obtained and allow movant's expert to review selected items, (3) the CD provided by the government which should contain copies of the bank video requested by movant's counsel is defective and additional time is needed for the government to replace the CD and allow the movant's expert to review the video, and (4) counsel for movant will need additional time to meet and confer with movant's expert.

Although the court does not necessarily agree with movant's counsel that the copying of all discovery provided in the underlying criminal case and access to some of the additional information sought by movant's counsel is necessary in these limited proceedings under § 2255, in the interest of justice and out of an abundance of caution, the court will grant the requested and stipulated to extension of time.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The May 14, 2012 stipulation by the parties requesting a fourteen-day extension of time (Doc. No. 289) is approved; and

2. On or before May 28, 2012, movant shall file and serve either a motion for leave to amend the § 2255 motion, a memorandum of points and authorities and a proposed amended § 2255 motion, or a notice that no such motion for leave to amend will be filed. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.

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