Court filing
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) DENYING 474 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND DENYING… — Artur Ayvazyan (Dkt. 492)
No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 492 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 492 Filed 06/10/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID
#:6026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:20-cr-579-SVW Date: June 10, 2021
Present: The Honorable: Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Judge
Interpreter NA
Paul M. Cruz N/A N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S.A. v. Defendant(s) Present Cust Bond Attorneys for Defendants: Present App Ret
Artur Ayvazyan X NA
Tamara Dadyan X NA
Vahe Dadyan X NA
Proceedings: ORDER DENYING [474] EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND
DENYING [489] EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR JOINDER AND CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL.
Before the Court is an ex parte application filed by defendants Artur Ayvazyan, Tamara Dadyan, and
Vahe Dadyan (collectively “Defendants”) to continue the trial from June 15, 2021 to June 29, 2021.
The ex parte application is DENIED. The basis for the request is that counsel for Defendants do not
have the resources or staff necessary to compile the underlying documents comprising each of the
Government’s exhibits. Accordingly, Defendants argue, a continuance is necessary to allow counsel to
complete that task and still have adequate time to prepare for trial.
The Court rejects this argument. First, the Government represents that it is in the process of producing
electronic copies of the exhibits to counsel, and that said process is “nearly complete.” Dkt. 473 at 2.
Second, Defendants’ argument is a red herring. Counsel for Defendant Vahe Dadyan suggests that a
review of the electronic exhibits is necessary to prepare for trial. See Dkt. 474 ¶ 17.
However, an electronic copy of each exhibit is not what allows an attorney to meaningfully prepare for
trial; rather, it is the documents underlying those exhibits that allow meaningful preparation. And Defendants
and their counsel have had ample time to review those documents. Indeed, as the Court explained in its prior
order, see Dkt. 343 at 1, the vast majority of documents were produced before March 15. Although some
documents were produced as late as April 15, see id., that is still two months before the trial date—a date
Defendants have been on notice of for two months, see Dkt. 284 (court’s scheduling order dated April 16, 2021
setting trial for June 15, 2021). Moreover, the documents were produced with a detailed index that provided
CR-11 (04/15) Criminal Minutes – General Page 1 of 2
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 492 Filed 06/10/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID
#:6027
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CRIMINAL MINUTES – GENERAL
sufficient information for counsel to identify which documents were relevant to their specific clients. See Dkts.
278-5, 281.
This Court rejected similar arguments about discovery on May 18, 2021. See Dkt. 343. If counsel felt
that, due to that decision by the Court, they needed additional time to prepare for trial, counsel could have
requested a continuance at that time. Instead, counsel waited over three weeks—until the eve of trial—to file
such a request.
Accordingly, the ex parte application is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Deputy Clerk
CR-11 (04/15) Criminal Minutes – General Page 2 of 2
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.492.0.pdf
- Size
- 101,293 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7fa10b34e2df9a81b6afd1dbdbcbdb38ff38c5a685ddfea0ba78d0d40c3ee7dc
- Original
- PACER (login required)