Filed: Nov. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL [ECF No. 13] NITA L. STORMES , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to continue the trial date of December 12, 2018. ECF No. 13. The parties submit that a brief continuance will permit the parties to "effectively prepare for, investigate, and represent" their respective interests at trial, and stipulate to a brief continuance. Id. The decision to grant or deny continuances rests within the sound d
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL [ECF No. 13] NITA L. STORMES , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to continue the trial date of December 12, 2018. ECF No. 13. The parties submit that a brief continuance will permit the parties to "effectively prepare for, investigate, and represent" their respective interests at trial, and stipulate to a brief continuance. Id. The decision to grant or deny continuances rests within the sound di..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
[ECF No. 13]
NITA L. STORMES, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to continue the trial date of December 12, 2018. ECF No. 13. The parties submit that a brief continuance will permit the parties to "effectively prepare for, investigate, and represent" their respective interests at trial, and stipulate to a brief continuance. Id.
The decision to grant or deny continuances rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be overturned except on a showing of abuse of discretion. Accord U.S. v. Mills, 597 F.2d 693, 698 (9th Cir. 1979) ("The trial court has great latitude in granting or denying continuances."); see also Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal § 832 Continuances (4th ed.) ("The grant or denial of a continuance is in the discretion of the trial court, and usually an appellate court will not interfere with the judge's decision absent an abuse of that discretion.") (collecting cases). Several factors may be evaluated when considering a request for continuance, including (1) the amount of time available for preparation; (2) prejudice to the parties if the motion is granted or denied; (3) the defendant's role in shortening the effective preparation time; (4) the degree of complexity of the case, (5) the availability of discovery from the prosecution; (6) the likelihood that continuance would satisfy the moving party's needs; and (7) the inconvenience and burden to the court. U.S. v. Isaacs, 593 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Wright, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Crim. § 7.1 Continuances.
Here, beyond the assertion that more time will allow additional preparation and investigation, the parties present no reason a continuance is necessary. Neither party asserts any prejudice, or the potential for any prejudice, if the request is denied. The case is not complex. Additionally, a continuance is not convenient to the Court's current calendar. Without any offering or showing as to what additional preparation or investigation may be necessary to proceed to trial for the alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1325, the parties do not present good cause to continue the trial date.1 The joint motion is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
