Filed: Sep. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND AMENDMENT OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION, PROPOSED FINDINGS, and PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Nirav Desai, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for defendant, Sharmistha Barai, and Mark Reichel, counsel for defendant, Satish Kartan, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order,
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND AMENDMENT OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION, PROPOSED FINDINGS, and PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Nirav Desai, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for defendant, Sharmistha Barai, and Mark Reichel, counsel for defendant, Satish Kartan, hereby stipulate the following: 1. By previous order, ..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE AND AMENDMENT OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
STIPULATION, PROPOSED FINDINGS, and PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, Nirav Desai, Assistant United States Attorney, together with Thomas A. Johnson, counsel for defendant, Sharmistha Barai, and Mark Reichel, counsel for defendant, Satish Kartan, hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for Status Conference on October 19, 2017.
2. By this stipulation, Defendants now move to continue the Status Conference to November 2, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. and to exclude time between October 19, 2017, and November 2, 2017, under the Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare). Additionally, the parties stipulate that the briefing schedule, which was originally ordered on May 16, 2017 (See Doc. No. 41), should be amended as follows:
i. Motions filed by: September 28, 2017
ii. Opposition filed by: October 19, 2017
iii. Reply filed by: October 26, 2017
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. A continuance is requested because all counsel for the defendants need additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and discuss potential resolutions. Furthermore, defense counsel, Thomas A. Johnson, underwent a knee surgery on July 21, 2017, which took a longer period of recovery than anticipated and needs additional time to file the motion.
b. Counsel for defendants believe the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c. The Government does not object to the continuance.
d. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) within which trial must commence, the time period of October 19, 2017, to November 2, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
