The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Anthony W. Ishii
) STIPULATION TO AMEND MOTION IN ) LIMINE FILING SCHEDULE AND ) ORDER ) DATE: January 7, 2013 ) TIME: 10:00 a.m.
This matter is set for trial on March 19, 2013. Motions in limine are currently due on November 30, 2012, with responses due December 14, 2012, and replies due December 21, 2012. A hearing on the motions in limine is scheduled for January 7, 2013.
It appears unlikely that this matter will proceed to trial and the parties anticipate that a change of plea will occur on January 7, 2013. For this reason it is requested that the January 7, 2013 hearing date be left in place for a probable change of plea, but that the currently scheduled motion in limine briefing schedule be vacated. It is further requested that in the event this matter is not resolved on January 7, 2013, motions in limine shall be due on January 21, 2013, with responses due on February 4, 2013, and replies due February 11, 2013. A hearing on the motions in limine shall be scheduled for February 19, 2013.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, DAVID L. GAPPA, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for plaintiff, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for defendant Javier Rocha-Vasquez, that the currently scheduled motion in limine briefing schedule may be vacated, with the following schedule substituted in its place. The requested new dates are as follows: motions in limine may be filed on or before January 21, 2013, with responses due February 4, 2013, and replies due February 11, 2013. A hearing on the motions in limine may be scheduled for February 19, 2013. It is further requested that the January 7, 2013 hearing date and the March 19, 2013 trial date shall remain unchanged.
This request is made with the intention of conserving time and resources for both parties and the court. The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney DATED: October 18, 2012 By /s/ David L. Gappa DAVID L. GAPPA Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff DANIEL J. BRODERICK Federal Defender DATED: October 18, 2012 By /s/ Eric V. Kersten ERIC V. KERSTEN Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant Javier Rocha-Vasquez
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...