STIPULATION TO CONTINUE PRETRIAL MOTION DEADLINES

ORDER

ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and AGREED by and between James E. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney, Charles Anthony Miracle, U.S. Department of Justice, Cole Arnold Radovich, U.S. Department of Justice, and David Z Chesnoff, Esq., and Richard A. Schonfeld, attorney for Defendant, Benjamin Galecki and John Lloyd Snook, III, Esq., attorney for Defendant, Charles Burton Ritchie, and Shawn R. Perez, Esq., attorney for Defendant, Ryan Matthew Eaton, that Defendants shall have to and including February 12, 2018, within which to file the Defendant's pretrial motions.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties herein, that the government shall have to and including, March 5, 2018, within which to file any and all responsive pleadings.

IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties herein that the Defendant shall have to and including, March 15, 2018, within which to file any and all replies to said motions.

That the calendar call scheduled for May 15, 2018 at 8:45 a.m. in this matter will commence on the scheduled date and time and is not impacted by this Stipulation. That the trial in this matter currently scheduled for May 21, 2018, at the hour of 9:00 a.m., will commence on the scheduled date and time and is not impacted by this Stipulation.

While the parties agree to the above stated extensions of deadlines the parties disagree on whether grounds asserted on prior motions briefed before the court can or cannot be filed at this juncture, which this stipulation does not address.

Accordingly,

This Stipulation is entered into for the following reasons:

1. That Counsel Schonfeld recently substituted in for Defendant Galecki and did not receive discovery from prior counsel. As a result, the government produced a new set of discovery for counsel Schonfeld on January 2, 2018;

2. That Counsel Schonfeld needs the additional time to prepare pretrial Motions as a result of his recent appearance in this case and the recent receipt of discovery;

3. That Counsel Schonfeld has been in communication counsel for the co-defendants and counsel for the government and there is no objection to the continuance as outlined above;

4. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance of the parties' motions deadline, response deadline, reply deadline;

5. Denial of this request for continuance of the pretrial motions deadline would deny counsel for Defendant sufficient time within which to be able to adequately research, prepare, and submit for filing appropriate motions taking into account the exercise of due diligence;

6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice;

7. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance for the parties' pretrial motions, response deadline and Reply deadline;

8. This is Counsel Schonfeld's second request for continuance of the pretrial motions, esponse deadlines and Reply deadline on behalf of the Defendant Galecki.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW AND ORDER

Based upon the pending Stipulation of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Court finds that:

1. That Counsel Schonfeld recently substituted in for Defendant Galecki and did not receive discovery from prior counsel. As a result, the government produced a new set of discovery for counsel Schonfeld on January 2, 2018;

2. That Counsel Schonfeld needs the additional time to prepare pretrial Motions as a result of his recent appearance in this case and the recent receipt of discovery;

3. That Counsel Schonfeld has been in communication counsel for the co-defendants and counsel for the government and there is no objection to the continuance as outlined above;

4. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance of the parties' motions deadline, response deadline, reply deadline;

5. Denial of this request for continuance of the pretrial motions deadline would deny counsel for Defendant sufficient time within which to be able to adequately research, prepare, and submit for filing appropriate motions taking into account the exercise of due diligence;

6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance would result in a miscarriage of justice;

7. For all the above-stated reasons, the ends of justice would best be served by a continuance for the parties' pretrial motions, response deadline and Reply deadline;

8. This is Counsel Schonfeld's second request for continuance of the pretrial motions, response deadlines and Reply deadline on behalf of the Defendant Galecki.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties herein shall be have to and including February 12, 2018, within which to file any and all pre-trial motions.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties herein shall have to and including March 5, 2018, within which to file any and all responsive pleadings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties herein shall have to and including March 15, 2018, within which to file any and all replies.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the calendar call scheduled for May 15, 2018 at 8:45 a.m. in this matter will commence on the scheduled date and time and is not impacted by this Stipulation. That the trial in this matter currently scheduled for May 21, 2018, at the hour of 9:00 a.m., will commence on the scheduled date and time and is not impacted by this Stipulation.