UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
January 12, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
W. SCOTT HARKONEN, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER SETTING BRIEFINGSCHEDULE AND HEARING ON BRADY MOTION; EXTENDING BRIEFING ON SUPPLEMENTAL SENTENCING BRIEFS; AND RESETTING SENTENCING HEARING STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER
Violation, and for Production of Additional Brady Evidence ("Brady Motion"), related to a recent 5 production of government documents by the United States;
fully to Dr. Harkonen's assertions in the Brady Motion, the United States has requested an extended 8 briefing schedule on the Brady Motion;
before the sentencing hearing;
Harkonen to file his supplemental sentencing brief regarding loss, and continued the sentencing 13 hearing to Wednesday, February 23, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.;
respond to the Brady Motion, the parties have agreed that the sentencing hearing should be continued for a period of four weeks;
on Fraud Loss, filed with the Court on December 15, 2010, the United States relies upon the WHEREAS, in order to evaluate the statements made in that declaration, Dr. Harkonen has requested from the United States the medical records of L.K.M., and the United States has agreed to provide those records;
time to collect and produce L.K.M.'s medical records and may not be able to produce those records significant in advance of January 20, 2011, when Dr. Harkonen's supplemental sentencing brief regarding loss is due;
WHEREAS, following several meet-and-confers between Defendant W. Scott Harkonen and the United States, Dr. Harkonen has filed a Motion for New Trial Due to Brady
WHEREAS, because of previous trial obligations in another matter and to respond
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that the Court should hear the Brady Motion
WHEREAS, the Court previously set Thursday, January 20, 2011 as the date for Dr.
WHEREAS, to accommodate the United States's request for additional time to
WHEREAS, in support of its arguments in its supplemental Sentencing Memorandum
Declaration of L.K.M., a purported IPF patient who was prescribed Actimmune;
WHEREAS, the United States has informed Dr. Harkonen that it needs additional
WHEREAS, the parties agree that it would be most efficient for Dr. Harkonen to obtain and review L.K.M.'s medical records before the filing of his supplemental sentencing brief regarding loss;
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, subject to approval of the Court, that:
1. Dr. Harkonen's supplemental sentencing brief regarding loss will be filed with the Court by Thursday, February 10, 2011;
2. The parties' additional witness designations for the sentencing hearing will be filed with the Court by Thursday, February 17, 2011;
2. The Government's opposition to Dr. Harkonen's Brady Motion will be filed with the Court by Tuesday, February 22, 2011;
3. Dr. Harkonen's reply in support of his Brady Motion will be filed with the Court by Friday, March 4, 2011;
4. The hearing on Dr. Harkonen's Brady Motion is set for Monday, March 14, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.;
5. The sentencing hearing is continued and set for Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 2:30 p.m.
Dated: January 11, 2011
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
By: Mark E. Haddad Attorneys for Defendant W. SCOTT HARKONEN
January 11, 2011
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Mark E. Haddad
Mark E. Haddad Attorneys for Defendant W. SCOTT HARKONEN
January 11, 2011
BRIAN J. STRETCH Acting United States Attorney
By: Kyle Waldinger Assistant United States Attorney
I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the foregoing Stipulation and [Proposed] Scheduling Order. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B.,
I hereby attest that the other signatory has concurred in this filing.
Upon stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing, the Court approves the briefing and hearing schedule as set forth in the parties' January 11, 2011 stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED. E DIST T S RI A CT S T C O D R U
E ORDERED T SO N IT I T IS U A I N O O
N H. Patel R Judge Marilyn
R F T I H L E A R C N F DIS O TRICT
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.