U.S. v. GRANDERSON, 3:13-00036. (2014)
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20140805b02
Visitors: 11
Filed: Aug. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2014
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. It is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's present counsel shall file a Reply in connection with the Motion to Produce filed by previous counsel in November 2013 (Docket No. 113). Defense counsel should be very specific as to the discovery he maintains he does not have and will need if the court sets an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment as a vindictive prosecution. (Docket No. 129) This Reply shall be filed by Augu
Summary: ORDER ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. It is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's present counsel shall file a Reply in connection with the Motion to Produce filed by previous counsel in November 2013 (Docket No. 113). Defense counsel should be very specific as to the discovery he maintains he does not have and will need if the court sets an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment as a vindictive prosecution. (Docket No. 129) This Reply shall be filed by Augus..
More
ORDER
ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.
It is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's present counsel shall file a Reply in connection with the Motion to Produce filed by previous counsel in November 2013 (Docket No. 113). Defense counsel should be very specific as to the discovery he maintains he does not have and will need if the court sets an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment as a vindictive prosecution. (Docket No. 129) This Reply shall be filed by August 11, 2014.
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
