STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY MOTIONS SCHEDULE

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Nathan V. HOFFMAN, by and through his counsel Robert Helfend, defendant Hung NGUYEN, by and through his counsel Donald M. Re, defendant Steve MARCUS, by and through his counsel Donald M. Heller, and defendant Brook MURPHY, by and through his counsel John Balazs, stipulate and request that the Court continue the current motions schedule to the following dates:

Defendants' anticipate filing multiple motions, including one or more motions to dismiss and to suppress evidence and need additional time to investigate, prepare, and file such motions. All remaining defendants are out of custody. In addition, counsel Heller is scheduled to undergo a total left shoulder replacement surgery on February 9, 2015 and will need time to recuperate. Further, the defense anticipates filing a motion to dismiss similar to the one filed in U.S. v. Schweder, et. al., 2:11-CR-0449-KJM, and believe it would be helpful for the parties and the court to await the final motion hearing scheduled for February 4, 2015, before filing motions in this case. Finally, the defense intends to incorporate Section 538 of the recent Budget Appropriations Law (signed 12/16/14) into their motion requests and need more time to research its bearing on this case.

In addition, the parties stipulate and agree that time should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The government provided more than 7,000 pages of discovery as well as video and audio materials. The government has also provided notice that significant additional, privacy-protected discovery is available for viewing at the U.S. Attorney's Office. As a result, counsel for each defendant needs additional time to review the voluminous materials, conduct necessary investigation, prepare a defense, and research and prepare motions.

The discoverable material spans four search warrants served at locations in Southern California and seven search warrants from seven sites in Northern California. The underlying Criminal Complaint in this case is more than 50 pages and incorporates an even longer affidavit from a previously-executed search warrant related to defendant HOFFMAN. In addition, this case is directly related to pending cases charging more than ten defendants in the Eastern District of California: United States v. Ebyam, no. 2:11-cr-00275 JAM, and United States v. Ebyam, et al., no. 2:11-cr-00276 JAM.

Counsel further stipulate that an exclusion of time from the filing of this motion (January 13, 2015) to July 14, 2015 is appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act because of defense counsel's need to review the discovery, investigate, prepare motions, and prepare a defense for trial. In addition, each defendant's counsel stipulates that this matter is "complex" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) (Local Code T2) because of the voluminous discovery, the complexity and unusual nature of the underlying conspiracy, and the pending indicted defendants in two related cases. As a result, counsel for all parties stipulate the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding such time and outweigh each defendant's interest in a speedy trial, as well as the public's interest in a speedy trial, so that counsel for each defendant may have reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(ii) & (iv) (local code T4).

ORDER

Based upon the representation by counsel and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The motions schedule in this case is modified as set forth above with a hearing on July 14, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.; and

2. Based upon the above representation and stipulation of the parties, the Court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and each defendant in a speedy trial. The Court further finds that the requested continuance is needed for defense preparation and that this case is complex and unusual because of the voluminous discovery supporting the charges, the unique drug conspiracy in the case, and the large number of pending indicted defendants in two related cases, United States v. Ebyam, No. 2:11-cr-00275 JAM, and United States v. Ebyam et al., No. 2:11-cr-00276 JAM. Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall also be excluded through July 14, 2015, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7) (B)(ii)&(iv) (Local Codes T2 & T4).

IT IS SO ORDERED.