EFTA00206079¶
Assistant U.S. Attorney¶
500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400¶
West Palm Beach, FL 33401¶
Friday, January 06, 2012 2:36 PM¶
Subject:¶
RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue¶
Since Cassell has conditioned his nonopposition with conditions, and since we don’t agree with what the conditions, shall we just file our motion and say that the victims oppose it? That seems easier than engaging in a never-ending debate with Cassell on the construction and interpretation of the 90 day rule.¶
My trial will begin on January 17, at 10:00 a.m. I am in the process now of notifying my witnesses and arranging times for their trial preparation interviews next week. I can put together a second motion for enlargement of time, but it will be after close of business. Thanks.¶
From: ▼, ▼ (USAFLS)¶
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 2:24 PM¶
To: [ ] , [ ] . (USAFLS); [ ] , [ ] (USAFLS)¶
Subject: RE: Status of Outstanding Motions/Discovery issue¶
Under Local Rule 7.1(b)(4), the motions/responses/replies that would be the subject of the extension are not subject to the 90-day notice because none is a “motion or other matter which has been pending and fully briefed with no hearing set thereon for a period of ninety (90) days” and none is a “motion or other matter as to which the Court has conducted a hearing.” Cassell’s concern regarding those motions is thus unmerited. With respect to the other matters that has identified, they are not our motions, and Rule 7.1(b)(4) makes clear that the notice obligation is imposed on the “the movant or applicant.” Notably, under the terms of the recently amended and renumbered rule, the notice must be “serve[d] on all parties and any affected non-parties.” The explicit filing requirement was deleted from the rule.¶
As to “initial discovery,” my recollection is that, notwithstanding the motion to stay discovery, we expressed a willingness to look at and consider a request for the government to provide discovery of discrete items where the resulting production would be relevant, not burdensome, and not otherwise objectionable. But I am unaware of any communication asking us to consider any more limited discovery request. I don’t recall any representation that we would provide “a list of additional discovery that we could expect if [Petitioners’] motion to dismiss is denied,” or anything else of the sort. It is not anything to which I would have been inclined to agree.¶