STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING; EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

STIPULATION

Plaintiff, United States of America is represented by Assistant United States Attorney Kevin C. Khasigian, defendant Jorge Eguiluz is represented by Donald H. Heller, and defendant Jeffrey Reilley is represented by Tim Pori. The parties hereto stipulate as follows:

1. The defendants Jorge Eguiluz and Jeffrey Reilley have entered not guilty pleas and on July 10, 2018, in open court before the Honorable John A. Mendez, United States District Judge, the case was scheduled for a jury trial for November 5, 2018 at 9:00AM and a Trial Confirmation Hearing on October 2, 2018 at 9:15 AM. At the trial setting hearing the government was represented by Assistant United States Attorney Nirav Desai. At said hearing, Mr. Desai indicated that Mr. Khasigian who would be sitting second chair was commencing a jury trial at the end of September in this District and the government wish to set this trial early 2019. The court indicated that the government should bring in a new attorney to sit second chair and set the above referenced trial date.

2. Mr. Desai is currently in trial before the Honorable Kimberly Mueller, United States District Judge, in the case of United States v. Rodney Flucas, Case 2:17-cr-00209-KJM. The trial is expected to continue through September 20, 2018, and then Mr. Desai is ending his federal service.

3. Mr. Heller in early September had a telephone conversation with Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Segal, a supervisor in the U.S. Attorney's office, wherein, Mr. Segal explained that Mr. Desai was leaving the United States attorney's office and inquired as to whether Mr. Heller would oppose continuing the trial in this matter since Mr. Khasigian would be the lead trial lawyer and Mr. Khasigian required additional time to prepare and assume the position of lead trial counsel for the government, preparation which will be delayed since Mr. Khasigian to commence a jury trial on October 29, 2018, United States v. Sanders, Case 2:16-cr-00081-JAM, and needed additional time to prepare for trial. It was noted by Mr. Segal and later by Mr. Khasigian, that although Mr. Khasigian was originally selected to sit as second chair in this matter, he only had general knowledge since he was involved in the forfeiture aspect of the case, he had not reviewed the voluminous 16, 000 pages of discovery. Mr. Heller advised that he would not object to continuing trial and advised that he later checked with Mr. Pori who also expressed no objection to the continuance.

4. Additionally, Mr. Heller in his telephone conversation with Mr. Segal, also described a medical reason as to why he would agree to continue the matter. When trial was set on July 10, 2018, he was unaware of subsequent personal health matters that he would need to undergo a medical procedure on December 5, 2018. That medical procedure was scheduled on August 17, 2018, to be performed on December 5, 2018. Had Mr. Heller been aware on of a medical procedure scheduled for December 5, 2018, on July 10, 2018, he would have requested a trial date in early 2019. Mr. Heller would be happy to provide the Court with HIPAA protected documents under seal describing in detail the medical reason for said continuance, if the court so desires.

5. Mr. Heller contacted Harry Vine and obtained the following dates for a continuance of trial and trial confirmation hearing: Jury Trial on February 25, 2019 at 9:00AM and Trial Confirmation Hearing on January 22, 2019 at 9:15AM

6. The parties agree that time should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period from the date of entry of this order to February 25, 2019, inclusive, be 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 the Government's request concurred in by defendants through counsel, 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 defendants in a speedy trial.

7. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

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.