USA v. Gerarden, CR 17-00151 RS. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20171206719
Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 14, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2017
Summary: [PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . The defense in this case has noticed its intention to file a Fourth Amendment suppression motion. The Court has previous agreed to the following briefing and hearing schedule: Defense Motion: November 14, 2017 Government Response: December 5, 2017 Defense Reply: December 19, 2017 Hearing: January 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm. In this stipulated order, the parties represent tha
Summary: [PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . The defense in this case has noticed its intention to file a Fourth Amendment suppression motion. The Court has previous agreed to the following briefing and hearing schedule: Defense Motion: November 14, 2017 Government Response: December 5, 2017 Defense Reply: December 19, 2017 Hearing: January 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm. In this stipulated order, the parties represent that..
More
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
The defense in this case has noticed its intention to file a Fourth Amendment suppression motion. The Court has previous agreed to the following briefing and hearing schedule:
Defense Motion: November 14, 2017
Government Response: December 5, 2017
Defense Reply: December 19, 2017
Hearing: January 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm.
In this stipulated order, the parties represent that they are currently engaged in settlement discussions. The parties represent that they believe the case may resolve before litigation on the suppression motion begins. Therefore, the parties jointly recommend that the briefing schedule be modified, to delay the initiation by one week and to take that week from the time for the defense Reply:
Defense Motion: November 21, 2017
Government Response: December 12, 2017
Defense Reply (Same): December 19, 2017
Hearing (Same): January 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm.
Therefore, for good cause shown the above briefing schedule is adopted. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial, and accordingly excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act until the filing of the defense motion on November 21, 2017. The Court finds this exclusion necessary to permit for continuity of counsel and to allow for the effective preparation of defense counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Source: Leagle
