Opinion
Case No.: CR 11-312-1 SBA
03-18-2013
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. ARTEM MARTINOV, Defendant.
Thomas J. Nolan, SBN 48413 Daniel Olmos, SBN 235319 NOLAN, ARMSTRONG & BARTON LLP Attorneys for Defendant Artem Martinov BRIAN LEWIS Assistant United States Attorney
Thomas J. Nolan, SBN 48413
Daniel Olmos, SBN 235319
NOLAN, ARMSTRONG & BARTON LLP
Attorneys for Defendant Artem Martinov
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS
CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE TIME
UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FOR
DEFENDANT MARTINOV
Before the Honorable Magistrate Kandis A.
Westmore
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between the prosecution through its attorney, Assistant United States Attorney Brian Lewis, and defendant Artem Martinov through undersigned counsel, that the status conference presently set for March 19, 2013, be continued to April 23, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. The reason for the request for continuance is that Mr. Martinov's attorney, Thomas Nolan, continues to be actively engaged in gathering third-party discovery in this matter.
Mr. Nolan applied to the Court for permission to serve a subpoena duces tecum on SunTrust Mortgage at the end of March 2012. Permission was granted in late July 2012, at which time the subpoena was served. SunTrust Mortgage moved to quash the subpoena, which motion was denied. (See Dkt. 73.) SunTrust Mortgage then provided some documents to Mr. Martinov in late October. It is Mr. Martinov's position that these documents were not responsive to the subpoena, and he filed a motion to compel and for an order to show cause. On December 17, this Court granted the motion to compel. A compliance hearing was held on January 17, 2013. On January 31, 2013, this Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding the discovery dispute. The supplemental briefing was completed on February 28, 2013. No additional hearing date has been scheduled.
Following the January 17 compliance hearing, Mr. Nolan applied to the Court for permission to serve a second subpoena duces tecum on SunTrust Mortgage. Permission was granted on January 31, 2013. The compliance date for this subpoena was March 7, 2013.
In response to that subpoena, on March 6, 2013, SunTrust produced more than 6,000 pages of discovery to defense counsel. Counsel is actively reviewing that discovery; it appears that, in light of that material and a declaration recently filed by SunTrust counsel, additional subpoenas may be necessary.
A subpoena duces tecum to a different mortgage company - IndyMac - was also served. In response to that subpoena, IndyMac produced approximately 1,000 pages of discovery at the beginning of February. Counsel has reviewed that material.
The parties agree that the time between March 19, 2013, and April 23, 2013, should be excluded from calculations under the Speedy Trial Act, which Act excludes delay when the interests of justice in allowing for the effective preparation of defense counsel outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). IT IS SO STIPULATED:
NOLAN, ARMSTRONG & BARTON LLP
______________________
THOMAS J. NOLAN
Attorney for Defendant Artem Martinov
______________________
BRIAN LEWIS
Assistant United States Attorney
ATTESTATION PER CIV. L.R. 5-1(i)(3)
I, Jenny Brandt, have permission from ECF User Thomas J. Nolan to use the ID and password being used to file this Stipulation. In compliance Civ. L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Brian Lewis has concurred with this filing. UNITED STATES, Plaintiff,
vs. ARTEM MARTINOV, Defendant.
Case No.: CR 11-312-1 SBA
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE
STATUS CONFERENCE AND EXCLUDE
TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
FOR DEFENDANT MARTINOV
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, it is hereby ordered that the status conference in this matter now scheduled for March 19, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., is hereby rescheduled for April 23, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court also finds that the time between March 19, 2013, and April 23, 2013, shall be excluded from calculations under the Speedy Trial Act. The interests of justice in allowing for the effective preparation of defense counsel outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
______________________
HON. KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge