ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR., United States Attorney, ROBERT E. DUGDALE, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division, TIMOTHY J. SEARIGHT, (SBN 151387) Assistant United States Attorney, OCDETF Section. Attorneys for Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER AND FINDINGS OF FACT RE: EXCLUDABLE TIME; STATUS CONFERENCE
GEORGE H. Wu, District Judge.
THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. A status conference is currently set in the above-captioned case for September 30, 2013.
2. The government has stated that discovery in this case is voluminous. As an indication of that, the government has provided discovery on an external hard drive. The government has indicated that it experienced difficulties in providing discovery in this case with regard to electronically stored information gathered during the course of the investigation.
3. The defendants have indicated that they will require a substantial amount of time to review the discovery before having a sense of the amount of time that will be needed for preparation of any pre-trial motions and for trial. Therefore, and pursuant to the stipulation of the above-listed defendants and the government, the Court finds that the period of time from September 30, 2013 through December 12, 2013 is a period of excludable delay because it is a period of delay requested by these defendants and counsel for the government "on the basis... that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Specifically, the court finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), that the case is sufficiently complex due to the number of defendants, the discovery materials provided, and the nature of the prosecution "that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits" established by the Speedy Trial Act. The Court also notes that above listed defendants have indicated that, based upon a review of the indictment, they may pursue various pre-trial motions, including suppression motions and, therefore, the time period is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D). The court further finds, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), that a failure to grant such a continuance, as requested by each above-listed counsel, would result in a miscarriage of justice in as much as counsel for each defendant has indicated that they are insufficiently prepared for trial.
THE COURT SO FINDS. The Court vacates the current status conference date of September 30, 2013 and sets a new status conference ...