U.S. v. PATEL, 2:12-cr-0306-JAM. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20140827806
Filed: Aug. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2014
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Defendant Kirit Patel's motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 47) came on for hearing before the court on August 25, 2014. After considering the parties' written briefing and oral argument, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The matter is set for a further hearing on September 2, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. 2. The United States Attorney's Office shall make further
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge. Defendant Kirit Patel's motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 47) came on for hearing before the court on August 25, 2014. After considering the parties' written briefing and oral argument, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The matter is set for a further hearing on September 2, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned. 2. The United States Attorney's Office shall make further i..
More
ORDER
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Kirit Patel's motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 47) came on for hearing before the court on August 25, 2014. After considering the parties' written briefing and oral argument, and for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The matter is set for a further hearing on September 2, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before the undersigned.
2. The United States Attorney's Office shall make further inquiries with the assigned case agent and the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") regarding the conspiracy in which Kirit Patel was allegedly involved with Tejas Patel; whether that alleged conspiracy also involved other individuals, such as Varang Thaker and Gopal Patel; and whether documents regarding such individuals' potential involvement with the alleged conspiracy exist which ought to be produced pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and/or Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
3. The United States Attorney's Office shall, to the extent possible, obtain and provide defendant's counsel with appropriate declarations from the assigned case agent and the FTC regarding the existence or non-existence of the documents referenced above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
