UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 28, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
RYAN WEDDING, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge
ORDER CONFIRMING TRIAL SCHEDULE; GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND DEFERRING PENDING IN LIMINE AND DISCOVERY RELATED MOTIONS; DENYING MOTION FOR TRIAL CONTINUANCE
The purpose of this order is to confirm the November 16, 2009 trial date and to clarify the status of several pending motions. The motions in limine (Docket Nos. 115, 116,117, 118, 135, and 140), are granted in part, denied in part and deferred in part as set forth in the Notice of Filing of Official Transcript. (Docket No. 153). As further addressed in Defendant's Motion to Preclude Evidence and for Sanctions (Docket Nos. 162-165), the court notes that the majority of the discovery related issues are moot in light of the Government's supplemental responses, and as further addressed at the time of the October 26, 2009 hearing. (Docket No. 171). Moreover, discovery is on-going. Pursuant to the Government's Brady obligations, the Government continues to provide additional information for in camera inspection. The court notes that on October 28, 2009 the Government made a third submission for in camera review. The court anticipates issuing an order addressing the in camera review within the next few days.
Late in the afternoon of October 28, 2009, the court received another request by Defendant to continue the trial. Counsel for Defendant, Mr. Denis, declares that he is in trial in the Central District of California through October 30, 2009, and that he requires additional trial preparation time in this case. The court denies the request for a continuance without prejudice for several reasons. First, trial in this matter was originally calendared for August 10, 2009 and continued on several different occasions to permit Defendant additional time to file motions, acquire discovery, and prepare for trial. Second, the Government has provided substantial discovery in this case in anticipation of the August, September, and October trial dates. The court anticipates that a few more pages of discovery may be produced upon completion of the in camera review identified upon. Even if a few more pages of discovery are produced two weeks before trial on a collateral matter, experienced counsel like Mr. Denis should be able to adequately prepare for trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.