Opinion
CR22-122JCC
07-30-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MOHAMMED ZAFARANCHI,, Defendants.
SETH WILKINSON Assistant United States Attorney
SETH WILKINSON Assistant United States Attorney
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE
HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter came before the Court on defendant Zafaranchi's Motion to Continue Trial Date. The government does not oppose the motion. The parties have stipulated to the scheduling order set out below. The Court finds and rules as follows:
1. Defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and destruction of records in a federal investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. The Indictment alleges that defendant and his co-conspirators promised homeowners that, in return for a fee of approximately $3,000, certain call centers would negotiate a mortgage modification that would substantially reduce their mortgage principal, interest rate, and monthly payment. The Indictment alleges that Mr. Zafaranchi employed various misrepresentations and other deceptive tactics to persuade homeowners to pay the fee. The Indictment further alleges that, while the processing center employees made some efforts on the homeowners' behalves, and sometimes obtained modifications, the group was rarely, if ever, able to negotiate modifications on terms as favorable as those promised in the mailers and by the call center operators.
2. Discovery is voluminous. The government has produced approximately 350,000 pages of records. Because the charges arise out of representations allegedly made to thousands of homeowners, review of the discovery and investigation of the underlying facts is taking substantial time and resources. In addition, new circumstances in the case, including the guilty plea of a co-defendant, require additional time for trial preparation.
3. The defendant and his counsel represent that they require additional time to review and analyze the government's discovery production and to conduct their factual and legal investigation before they can prepare for trial. Defense counsel's time is restricted by other obligations described in defendant's motion. Defendant and his attorneys have indicated that the failure to grant a continuance of the requested length would unreasonably deny the defense the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. 18 § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court agrees that counsel cannot reasonably be expected to prepare for trial in the time allowed under the existing schedule, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
4. The COURT FINDS that the ends of justice will best be served by a continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
5. The COURT FINDS that the failure to grant such a continuance in this case would likely result in a miscarriage of justice because the government and the defendant would be denied the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv);
6. The COURT FINDS pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), that the case is so unusual and complex, due to the nature of the prosecution and the volume of discovery, that it would be unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for trial within the time limits established by 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.; and
7. The COURT FINDS that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv), the period of delay is reasonable.
Based on these findings it is ORDERED that the period of delay from the date of this order through February 18, 2025, is excludable time pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 et seq., for purposes of computation of the time limitations imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161 through 3164. Trial of this matter is hereby continued to February 24, 2025.
The parties shall observe the following scheduling deadlines:
| Event | Deadline |
| Expert disclosure for government's case-in-chief | Passed |
| Expert disclosure for defense's case-in-chief | |
| Pretrial motions filing date | Passed |
| Rebuttal expert disclosure deadline | Passed |
| Pretrial motions response date | 8/13/2024 |
| Pretrial motions reply date | 8/20/2024 |
| Pretrial motions noting date | 8/20/2024 |
| Government's exhibit list filing deadline | 1/15/2025 |
| Government's trial brief filing deadline | 1/15/2025 |
| Event | Deadline |
| Disclosure of government's witness list | 1/15/2025 |
| Government's proposed jury instructions filing date | 1/15/2025 |
| Defense exhibit list filing deadline | 1/22/2025 |
| Defense trial brief filing date | 1/22/2025 |
| Disclosure of defense witness list | 1/22/2025 |
| Defense proposed jury instructions | 1/22/2025 |
| Motions in limine filing date | 1/31/2025 |
| Motions in limine response date | 2/7/2025 |
| Government's supplemental proposed jury instructions | 2/12/2025 |
| Trial | 2/24/2025 |
Defendant has requested leave to file an expert report following the disclosure deadline if the Court denies defendant's Motion to Strike Government's Expert. Dkt. 76 p. 10.
IT IS SO ORDERED.