U.S. v. WADDELL, CR415-095. (2016)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160216957
Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 157), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 159). After a careful de nova review of the record, the Court finds Defendant's objections to be without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 139), Motion for Additional Time to Review Digital Discovery (Doc. 140
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr. , District Judge . Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 157), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 159). After a careful de nova review of the record, the Court finds Defendant's objections to be without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 139), Motion for Additional Time to Review Digital Discovery (Doc. 140)..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM T. MOORE, Jr., District Judge.
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 157), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 159). After a careful de nova review of the record, the Court finds Defendant's objections to be without merit. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is ADOPTED as the Court's opinion in this case. As a result, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 139), Motion for Additional Time to Review Digital Discovery (Doc. 140), and Motion to Exclude Folkenberg Deposition1 (Doc. 151) are DENIED.
In his objections, Defendant makes several assertions that he waived his attendance at Mr. Folkenberg's deposition with the understanding that the Government would meet certain conditions. (Doc. 159 at 2-3.) This Court's review of the record, however, fails to identify any express conditions placed on Defendant's waiver. In fact, both the Government and the Magistrate Judge counseled Defendant against waiving his attendance. While Defendant questioned certain procedures for obtaining and reviewing evidence, at no point did either the Government or the Magistrate Judge make any promises to induce Defendant to waive his attendance. Rather, Defendant made a knowing and voluntary choice not to attend, and must now live with the consequences2 of that decision.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant's Motion to Amend Motion to Exclude is GRANTED. (Doc. 154.) The Court reviewed the amended motion when ruling on Defendant's objections.
2. That is not to say the Court finds that Defendant is Defendant has not been significantly prejudiced by failing
Source: Leagle
