Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Alexander

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 30, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
VONTEAK ALEXANDER, Defendant.

          RENE VALLADARES Federal Public Defender

          RACHEL KORENBLAT, Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorney for Vonteak Alexander

          RENE L. VALLADARES Federal Public Defender RACHEL M. KORENBLAT Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorney for Vonteak Alexander.

          MOTION TO CONTINUE RESPONSE TO OBJECTION TO SUBPOENA (EXPEDITED TREATMENT REQUESTED)

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge.

         Certification: This motion is timely filed.

         The defendant, Vonteak Alexander, by and through his counsel of record, Rachel Korenblat, Assistant Federal Public Defender, moves this Honorable Court for an order to continue Mr. Alexander's date to respond to the County of Alameda, Social Services Agency, Department of Children and Family Services' Objection to Subpoena until December 5, 2017. This motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and all filings to date.

         DATED this 27th day of November, 2017.

         MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

         On February 28, 2017, the grand jury in the District of Nevada charged Mr. Alexander with one count of Conspiracy to Commit Sex Trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c), one count of Sex Trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(2), (c) and 2, one count of Conspiracy to Transport for Prostitution or Other Criminal Sexual Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1594(c), one count of Transport for Prostitution or Other Criminal Sexual Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423(a), 2, and one count of Coercion and Enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (the “Indictment”). ECF No. 1.

         Based on the parties' joint motion, on August 16, 2017, this Court ordered the California Child Protective Services (“CPS”), among other entities, to produce to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Defender's Office certain records concerning A.B.W., the alleged victim in this case within two weeks of the date of the order. ECF No. 39 (sealed motion and signed order). The government represented to the undersigned that it would serve all of the parties subject to this order: the California Department of Juvenile Justice, the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, California Juvenile Justice Court, and California CPS. The government, however, served all of the parties except California CPS.

         When the undersigned became aware CPS was not served, the Federal Public Defender's Office served California CPS on October 16, 2017. Sealed Exhibit A, attached hereto. (Sealed subpoena). The subpoena attached the Court order, which provided that disclosure was due within two weeks of the order. Ex. A at pp. 6-10. Because that time had passed, Attachment A to the subpoena provided a deadline of November 1, 2017. Id. at p. 3.

         After November 1, 2017, the undersigned contacted an attorney for CPS because the entity had not complied with the subpoena. The attorney explained she thought the response date was December 19, 2017. See Ex. A at p. 2. The undersigned explained that December 19 was the trial date, not the due date for the subpoena. Nevertheless, the attorney stated that CPS was going to object to producing records by November 15, 2017. Because CPS had not filed any objections or moved to quash the subpoena by that date, on November 17, 2017, Mr. Alexander filed a Motion to Compel. ECF No. 77. On November 20, 2017, the Court granted Mr. Alexander's Motion to Compel by ordering CPS to comply with the subpoena or show cause by December 4, 2017. ECF No. 81.

         On November 21, 2017, the Court docketed an objection by CPS's counsel as a response to Mr. Alexander's Motion to Compel. ECF No. 82. Pacer then automatically set a reply date by November 28, 2017. Id. Because the Court had previously granted Mr. Alexander's Motion to Compel, see ECF No. 81, the objection appears to be more of a stand-alone filing showing cause why CPS will not comply with the Court's orders than a response to a motion.

         Because CPS raises arguments as to why it will not comply with the Court's previously issued orders, and the intervening holiday weekend, Mr. Alexander requests the Court allow Mr. Alexander to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.