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. Grimm

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 16, 2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s),
v.
STEVEN GRIMM, et al., Defendant(s).

          ORDER

         Presently before the court is the United States of America's (“the government”) motion for extension of time. (ECF No. 714). Petitioner Eve Mazzarella's (“petitioner”) did not respond, and the time to do so has passed.

         Also before the court is the government's for leave to file expanded brief. (ECF No. 752). Petitioner did not respond, and the time to do so has passed.

         Also before the court is the government's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for clarification. (ECF No. 718). Petitioner filed a response (ECF No. 720), to which the government replied (ECF No. 721).

         Also before the court is petitioner's motion to extend time to reply to the government's response. (ECF No. 754). The government did not respond, and the time to do so has passed.

         Also before the court is petitioner's motion for court order for trial counsel's case file. (ECF No. 748). Trial counsel Douglass A. Mitchell filed a response (ECF No. 755) and three supplements thereto (ECF Nos. 756; 757; 759). Trial counsel Robert Wallach has not responded.

         The government filed its motion to reconsider, arguing that the court failed to address its pending motions to waive the attorney-client privilege (ECF No. 712) and extend time (ECF No. 714). (ECF No. 718). The court granted the government's motion to waive the attorney-client privilege and allowed the court an additional 60 days, after receiving Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Wallach's affidavits or declarations, to file its response to petitioner's § 2255 motion.[1] (ECF No. 730). Further, the government has already filed its response to petitioner's motion. (ECF No. 753). To the extent that the government's motion to extend time remains pending, it is hereby granted. (ECF No. 714). Further, good cause appearing in light of the complexity of petitioner's motion, the court retroactively grants the government's motion to file expanded brief. (ECF No. 752).

         Having granted the government's motions, the court denies the government's motion to reconsider as moot. (ECF No. 718).

         The court now turns to petitioner's motion for court order for trial counsel's case file. (ECF No. 748). Although he did not respond, Mr. Wallach indicated to petitioner's current counsel that “[he] retained no Mazzarella file when [he] closed [his] office” but that “all that exists can be found as Mr. Mitchell indicates.” (ECF No. 748-3 at 1). Mr. Mitchell filed a response and three supplements thereto describing the documents he has sent to petitioner and the means by which he did. (ECF Nos. 755; 756; 757; 759). In particular, Mr. Mitchell indicates that his “[s]upplemental [p]roduction consists of more than seventeen thousand total documents (emails and attachments).” (ECF No. 759 at 3).

         Petitioner's motion requests “a copy of the case file from trial counsel.” (ECF No. 748 at 2). In light of Mr. Mitchell's extensive production of documents, the court denies petitioner's motion as moot.

         Considering the foregoing discussion, the complexity of petitioner's § 2255 motion, and the length of the government's response, the court finds that good cause appears to grant petitioner's unopposed motion to extend time to reply to government's response. Further, the motion is unopposed. See LR 7-2(d). (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 or a motion for attorney's fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”). The court grants petitioner's motion to extend time. (ECF No. 754). Petitioner shall file her reply to the government's response on or before March 31, 2020.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the government's motion for extension of time (ECF No. 714) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The government's deadline to respond is retroactively extended to October 18, 2019.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the government's motion for leave to file expanded brief (ECF No. 752) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that government's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for clarification (ECF No. 718) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as moot.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for court order for trial counsel's case file (ECF No. 748) be, ...


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.