Filed: Aug. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 9, 2018, and time was excluded through that date. 2. By subsequent order, this matter was set for status on October 16, 2018, and the parties were directed to file a stipulation regarding exclusion of time. 3. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conf
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 9, 2018, and time was excluded through that date. 2. By subsequent order, this matter was set for status on October 16, 2018, and the parties were directed to file a stipulation regarding exclusion of time. 3. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status confe..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 9, 2018, and time was excluded through that date.
2. By subsequent order, this matter was set for status on October 16, 2018, and the parties were directed to file a stipulation regarding exclusion of time.
3. By this stipulation, the defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 23, 2018, and to exclude time between October 9, 2018, and October 23, 2018, under Local Code T4.
4. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The parties are in the process of negotiating a protective order so that the government can produce discovery.
b) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes over 1000 pages, as well as a significant amount of audio and video. Once the parties have agreed upon a protective order, all of this discovery will be either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
c) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to finish negotiating the protective order, review the discovery, and discuss potential resolutions with their clients.
d) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
e) The government does not object to the continuance.
f) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
g) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of October 9, 2018, to October 23, 2018, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] 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.
5. 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.
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
