Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Lindsey Motion to Strike State Dept. Declaration

Lindsey Motion to Strike State Dept. Declaration

Ratings: (0)|Views: 161 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Published by: Mike Koehler on Mar 23, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/23/2011

pdf

text

original

 
EX PARTE 
APPLICATION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENT12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JANET I. LEVINE (STATE BAR NO. 94255)MARTINIQUE E. BUSINO (STATE BAR NO. 270795)Crowell & Moring LLP515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-2258Phone: (213) 622-4750Fax: (213) 622-2690EMAIL: jlevine@crowell.comEMAIL: mbusino@crowell.comAttorneys for DefendantSteve K. LeeJAN L. HANDZLIK (STATE BAR NO. 47959)GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 EastSanta Monica, Ca 90404Phone: (310) 586-6542Fax: (310) 586-0542EMAIL: handzlikj@gtlaw.comAttorneys for Defendants Lindsey ManufacturingCompany and Keith E. Lindsey
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.ENRIQUE FAUSTINO AGUILAR ORIEGA, ANGELA MARIAGOMEZ AGUILAR, LINDSEYMANUFACTURING COMPANY,KEITH E. LINDSEY, andSTEVE K. LEE,Defendants.))))))))))))))))CASE NO. CR 10-1031(A)-AHM
EXPART
APPLICATION FOR ANORDER TO STRIKE THESUPPLEMENT TO THEGOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITIONTO THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONTO DISMISS THE FIRSTSUPERSEDING INDICTMENTAND THE DECLARATION OFCLIFTON M. JOHNSON, OR, INTHE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ANORDER REQUIRING THAT MR.JOHNSON APPEAR AT THEHEARING ON DEFENDANTS’MOTION; EXHIBIT; [PROPOSED]ORDER (UNDER SEPARATECOVER)
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 303 Filed 03/21/11 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:6563
 
EX PARTE 
APPLICATION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENT112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Defendants Lindsey Manufacturing Company, Keith E. Lindsey, and SteveK. Lee (collectively “defendants”), by their counsel of record, hereby apply
ExParte
to Strike the Supplement to the Government’s Opposition to the Defendants’Motion to Dismiss the First Superseding Indictment and the Declaration of CliftonM. Johnson. In the alternative, defendants apply for an order requiring that Mr.Johnson appear at the Hearing on Defendants’ Motion. Government counsel hasinformed counsel for Mr. Lee that the government will not voluntarily produce Mr.Johnson at this hearing. This application is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Exhibit, all files and records in this case, and all matter thatmay be later adduced.The government has been advised of this application and relief sought, anddoes not oppose the
ex parte
nature of the application, but does oppose the relief sought.DATED: March 21, 2011 Respectfully submitted,JANET I. LEVINECROWELL & MORING LLP_/s/ Janet I. Levine __________________ By: JANET I. LEVINEAttorneys for DefendantSteve K. LeeDATED: March 21, 2011 Respectfully submitted,JAN L. HANDZLIK GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP__/s/ Jan L. Handzlik___________________ By: JAN L. HANDZLIK Attorneys for DefendantsLindsey Manufacturing Company andKeith E. Lindsey
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 303 Filed 03/21/11 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:6564
 
EX PARTE 
APPLICATION TO STRIKE SUPPLEMENT112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI. INTRODUCTION
On March 18, 2011, without leave of the Court, the government improperlyfiled what amounts to a sur-reply to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the FirstSuperseding Indictment.
See
Supplement to the Government’s Opposition to theDefendant’s Motion to Dismiss the First Superseding Indictment; Declaration of Clifton M. Johnson (Docket No. 296) (“Supplement and Declaration”);
see also
Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss the First SupersedingIndictment (Docket No. 220) (“Def. Mot.”). The government’s Supplement andDeclaration fail to satisfy local and federal rules limiting the submission of sur-replies. They also proffer irrelevant arguments and authorities.For these reasons, defendants Lindsey Manufacturing Company, Keith E.Lindsey, and Steve K. Lee request that the Court strike the supplement anddeclaration or, in the alternative, order that the declarant on whose sworn statementthe sur-reply is based appear at the hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss.
A. The Supplement and Its Accompanying Declaration is an ImproperSur-Reply
The government styles its filing as a “supplement.” In actuality, it is aninappropriate sur-reply brief filed without leave of court and in a manner thatdeprives defendants of the ability to analyze all responses. Local Civil Rule 7-10provides that “[a]bsent prior written order of the Court, the [party opposing amotion] shall not file a response to the reply.L. R. Civ. 7-10.
1
1
See
L. Crim. R. 57-1(“When applicable directly or by analogy, the LocalRules of the Central District of California shall govern the conduct of criminalproceedings before the District Court, unless otherwise specified.”). Thegovernment attempts to deflect attention from Rule 7-10 by reminding the Courtthat “it noted” its plan to file this paper in its opposition to defendants’ motion, butits having so noted does not nullify Rule 7-10.
See
Supplement and Declaration at1-2.
Case 2:10-cr-01031-AHM Document 303 Filed 03/21/11 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:6565

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->