Filed: Dec. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE JANUARY 20, 2016 TRIAL TO MAY 3, 2016, AS WELL AS (2) ATTENDANT PRETRIAL HEARING DATE; ORDER ANTHONY W. ISHII , District Judge . THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Gary Huss, Counsel for Defendant Michael Brandon Kiper ("defendant"), that this action's (a) January 20, 2016 jury trial be continued to 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016. The parties
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE JANUARY 20, 2016 TRIAL TO MAY 3, 2016, AS WELL AS (2) ATTENDANT PRETRIAL HEARING DATE; ORDER ANTHONY W. ISHII , District Judge . THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Gary Huss, Counsel for Defendant Michael Brandon Kiper ("defendant"), that this action's (a) January 20, 2016 jury trial be continued to 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016. The parties a..
More
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE JANUARY 20, 2016 TRIAL TO MAY 3, 2016, AS WELL AS (2) ATTENDANT PRETRIAL HEARING DATE; ORDER
ANTHONY W. ISHII, District Judge.
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Gary Huss, Counsel for Defendant Michael Brandon Kiper ("defendant"), that this action's (a) January 20, 2016 jury trial be continued to 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 2016. The parties also stipulate that this action's pretrial hearing, currently scheduled to address both in limine and trial confirmation issues, likewise be continued as specifically set forth below.
The parties base this stipulation on good cause. In short, they ask the court to grant their joint request for a trial continuance so the parties can maximize their ability to resolve this matter prior to its inception. More specifically, after the parties' extensive file analyses, meetings with computer experts, legal research, and multiple rounds of negotiations, the government prepared a draft plea agreement including terms in alignment with what the parties discussed and delivered the same to the defense. Defense counsel has engaged in significant discussions about the agreement with defendant, and remains optimistic that a resolution of this case (which would be fact-intensive, involve an immense amount of computer-based and other evidence and require the government to subpoena witnesses located throughout North America) can be reached prior to trial. In light of the substantial terms set forth in the draft plea agreement, defense counsel feels as if he just needs more time.
The parties reached their recommended trial continuance date after consulting with their own calendars, the court's calendar, and the availability of the government's primary witnesses. Pursuant to the reasons set forth, above, the parties request that the following dates be continued in this case:
Existing Dates Requested Continued Dates
1. Trial Confirmation Hearing/ — January 4, 2016 April 11, 2016
Hearing on Pretrial Motions
2. Trial — January 20, 2016 May 3, 2016 (8:30 a.m.)
For the above stated reasons, the stipulated continuance will conserve time and resources both for the parties and the court, and the delay resulting from this continuance shall be excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(3)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(A).
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
