The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward J. Garcia United States District Judge
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND ORDER THEREON
On August 31, 2009, the Court set a motion schedule based on the defendant's intention to file a motion to supress evidence. That motion was filed on November 19, 2009. The government requested, and the Court granted, an additional two weeks to respond, in order to obtain transcripts and other documents from the Nevada County Superior Court and District Attorney's Office. The government's opposition is currently due tomorrow, December 30, 2009.
As set forth in the attached declaration of Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Stegman, the government requests an additional ten day extension of time until January 8, 2010, to file its opposition. This is based on the fact that some of the documents requested from the Superior Court and District Attorney's Office were received December 23, and the remainder were received yesterday.
If the court grants the requested extension of time, any reply by the defendant would then be requested to be due January 22, 2010, with the suppression hearing on January 29, 2010, at 10:00.
The jury trial is currently scheduled for February 23, 2010, with a trial confirmation hearing scheduled for January 29, 2010. If after the suppression hearing, additional time is needed for trial confirmation, a further trial confirmation hearing could be scheduled for February 5, 2010.
I, MATTHEW STEGMAN, declare as follows:
1. I am an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California and am the attorney assigned the the case of United States v. David John Carli, CR-S-06-331-EJG.
2. The defendant filed his Motion to Supress Evidence on November 19, 2009. The motion is 22 pages. In addition, it contains 13 attachments consisting of a total of 191 pages.
3. The motion to suppress attacks a federal search warrant and a number of prior state search warrants. In total, there were 5 search warrants obtained that are at issue in this case.
4. The defendant not only argues in his motion that there was a lack of probable cause set forth in these warrants, but he also argues that law enforcement made false statements and/or failed to include information in at least one search warrant affidavit.
5. In order to counter this argument, I ordered transcripts and other documents from the Superior Court in Nevada County and the District Attorney's Office. I received some of these documents December 23, 2009, with the rest being received yesterday, December 28, 2009. Due to the complexity of the motion, I need additional time to review the documents and draft the portions of my opposition based on the documents received.
6. I have discussed my need for additional time with David Dratman, attorney for defendant David Cali, and he has no objection to my request for the ...