Filed: Jul. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE E. CLAYTON SCOFIELD III, Magistrate Judge. A pretrial conference was held on July 8, 2014, in this matter. At the pretrial conference, the parties were directed to confer regarding several pending motions and report to the Court by Friday July 11. This Order and Report and Recommendation will follow up with respect to matters addressed at the pretrial conference and in the subsequent report to the Court by counsel. First, with respect
Summary: ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE E. CLAYTON SCOFIELD III, Magistrate Judge. A pretrial conference was held on July 8, 2014, in this matter. At the pretrial conference, the parties were directed to confer regarding several pending motions and report to the Court by Friday July 11. This Order and Report and Recommendation will follow up with respect to matters addressed at the pretrial conference and in the subsequent report to the Court by counsel. First, with respect t..
More
ORDER, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
E. CLAYTON SCOFIELD III, Magistrate Judge.
A pretrial conference was held on July 8, 2014, in this matter. At the pretrial conference, the parties were directed to confer regarding several pending motions and report to the Court by Friday July 11. This Order and Report and Recommendation will follow up with respect to matters addressed at the pretrial conference and in the subsequent report to the Court by counsel.
First, with respect to the motions in limine filed by the government, [Doc. 30], and by Defendant Annamalai, [Doc. 131], relating to the admissibility of certain foreign records, it appears that these motions have been resolved and are MOOT. Defendant is no longer challenging the admissibility of the subject records.
Next, with respect to the motion for a Daubert hearing filed by Mr. Annamalai, [Doc. 111], it appears that this motion has not been particularized either as stated in the motion that it would be, or as of the date of this order and report. Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the motion for a Daubert hearing, [Doc. 111], be DENIED.
As for the motion to suppress evidence also filed by Mr. Annamalai, [Doc. 112], Defendant has not particularized this motion and has indicated to the Court that he does not intend to do so, after conference with the government regarding the photographs the government intends to introduce. The motion to suppress, [Doc. 112], should, therefore, be DENIED, and IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
SO ORDERED, REPORTED and RECOMMENDED.