ANNA TRYON PLETCHER (Cal. Bar No. 239730), TAI S. MILDER (Cal. Bar No. 267070), MAY LEE HEYE (Cal. Bar No. 209366), KELSEY C. LINNETT (Cal. Bar No. 274547), Trial Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, San Francisco, California.
PAUL J. PFINGST Counsel for ANDREW B. KATAKIS.
SCOTT L. TEDMON, Counsel for DONALD M. PARKER.
MATTHEW C. BOCKMONM, Counsel for W. THEODORE LONGLEY.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE EARLY PRODUCTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
The United States, through its attorneys, and the defendants, Andrew B. Katakis, Donald M. Parker, and W. Theodore Longley, through their counsel, hereby stipulate to the following:
1. This matter is currently set for trial before this Court on January 28, 2014.
2. The United States intends to call numerous individuals in its case-in-chief.
3. To the extent that any of these witnesses testified before the Grand Jury, the transcripts of their testimony would fall within the provisions of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, et seq.
4. In order to facilitate the efficient presentation of evidence by both parties, the parties believe it is in the interests of justice to permit early disclosure of any Grand Jury testimony subject to the Jencks Act.
5. Accordingly, the parties hereby agree that pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and upon order of the Court, a proposed version of which is attached, the United States shall be permitted to produce to counsel for the defendants a copy of any Grand Jury testimony of any witness that the United States intends to call as a witness in its case-in-chief.
6. The parties further agree and stipulate that any such Grand Jury transcripts produced by the United States shall be used only with respect to the above-captioned criminal trial, and counsel for the defendants shall not disclosure or provide copies of such transcripts, or summaries of their contents, to any individuals other than the defendants or any individuals that counsel has retained for the defense in this case. Nothing in this provision limits the ...