Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cr-137 TLN Case No. 2:15-cr-204 GEB
12-03-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER GRADY, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER GRADY, JEFFREY GRADY, TOSH BABU, AND JACOB COOK Defendants.
HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, #122664 Federal Defender NOA E. OREN, #297100 Assistant Federal Defender Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-5700/Facsimile: (916) 498-5710 Noa_Oren@fd.org Attorney for Defendant CHRISTOPHER GRADY
HEATHER E. WILLIAMS, #122664
Federal Defender
NOA E. OREN, #297100
Assistant Federal Defender
Designated Counsel for Service
801 I Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 498-5700/Facsimile: (916) 498-5710
Noa_Oren@fd.org Attorney for Defendant
CHRISTOPHER GRADY NOTICE OF RELATED CASES
Pursuant to Local Rule 123, the United States of America through Matthew Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, and Defendant Christopher Grady, through Assistant Federal Defender, Noa E. Oren, give notice that the above-entitled actions are related within the meaning of Local Rule 123 and request that 2:15-cr-204-GEB be reassigned to Judge Troy Nunley. Mr. Greg Foster, attorney for defendant Jeffrey Grady, and Mr. William Bonham, attorney for defendant Jacob Cook, do not oppose the request. (Defendant Tosh Babu, who has not been arrested yet, has not yet been appointed an attorney.)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
An indictment in 2:13-cr-137-TLN, charging Mr. Christopher Grady with being a felon in possession of a firearm was filed on April 18, 2013 and assigned to Judge Nunley. The firearm was discovered in Mr. Grady's house when law enforcement executed a search warrant to investigate whether Mr. Grady was filing false tax claims. The government alerted the Court on October 8, 2015 that Mr. Grady would be facing new charges. And the government told the Court that counsel would determine before the next status conference on December 3, 2015 whether a Notice Relating Cases would be in order.
An indictment in 2:15-cr-204-GEB, charging Mr. Christopher Grady, Mr. Jeffrey Grady, Mr. Babu, and Mr. Cook with conspiracy to submit false claims, false claims, aggravated identity theft, and mail fraud was filed October 1, 2015 and assigned to Judge Burrell. The parties have not yet appeared in front of Judge Burrell and no discovery has been provided in that case.
The parties will be seeking to resolve Mr. Christopher Grady's cases together.
ANALYSIS
Under Local Rule 123(a), cases may be related if the Court finds:
(1) that the actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims;
(2) that the actions involve the same property, transaction or event;
(3) that the actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and their assignment to the same Judge...is likely to effect a substantial
savings ofjudicial effort, either because the same result should following the actions or otherwise; or
(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the action were heard by different Judges....
Here the criminal cases appear related within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Both prosecutions charge the same defendant, Christopher Grady, with crimes that are part of the same sequence of events. The same search warrant is involved in both cases so there are likely to be similar questions of fact and the same question of law regarding any Fourth Amendment issues in both cases. (Counsel for Mr. Grady has not received any discovery in the second case so is unable to ascertain whether there are any Fourth Amendment issues in the second case). These matters concern the same sequence of events and "involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law..." L.R. 123(a)(3).
In addition to the fact that these cases flow out of the same sequence of events, because Mr. Grady will be sentenced in both cases and factual information will be presented regarding his history and characteristics pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), if these cases were heard by different judges, there would be "substantial duplication of labor." L.R. 123(a)(4). Substantial judicial resources would be saved by relating the above-captioned matters. See L.R. 123(c) (reassignment of a case is appropriate where it is "likely to effect a substantial savings ofjudicial effort" because it will necessarily avoid the "substantial duplication of labor" by the judiciary of this district).
For these reasons, the United States and defendant Christopher Grady respectfully request the two cases be assigned to a single district judge. Judge Nunley was first assigned to 13-cr-137-TLN. There have been no court appearances in front of Judge Burrell on case 15-cr-204-GEB and the government has not provided any discovery in that matter yet. In the interests ofjudicial economy, it is recommended that the second matter, 15-cr-204-GEB, be reassigned to Judge Nunley. DATED: December 1, 2015
HEATHER E. WILLIAMS
Federal Defender
/s/ Noa E. Oren
NOA E. OREN
Assistant Federal Defender
Attorney for Defendant
CHRISTOPHER GRADY
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
/s/ Matthew Morris
MATTHEW MORRIS
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorney for Plaintiff
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' notice, and good cause appearing therefrom, relates cases 2:13-cr-137 TLN and 2:15-cr-204-GEB and reassigns 2:15-cr-204-GEB to his own Court. The Court specifically finds the cases involve the same series of events and similar questions of fact and law. The Court finds that relating the cases will effect a substantial savings of judicial effort and reassigns 2:15-cr-204-GEB in order to eliminate substantial duplication of labor. Dated: December 3, 2015
/s/_________
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge