Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1631 Filed 07/07/23 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is “Defendant Michael Lacey’s Unopposed Motion for Relief
`
`from Trial Schedule Conflict” (Doc. 1629), filed on July 6, 2023. Trial in this matter is
`
`set to commence on August 8, 2023, and continue through November 3, 2023, with some
`
`noted recesses in between those dates. (Doc. 1546). In the Motion for Relief, Mr.
`
`Cambria, one of three attorneys of record for Defendant Michael Lacey, informs the
`
`Court that his daughter is getting married in New York on September 9, 2023, and asks
`
`that the Court vacate the trial days currently set for September 6–9. Mr. Cambria
`
`represents there is no one that can assume his responsibilities during these two and a half
`
`days of trial. (Doc. 1629 at 2). Without specifying, Mr. Cambria says that his partner
`
`and co-counsel of record Erin McCampbell Paris “is not a trial attorney” and local co-
`
`counsel of record Janey Henze Cook is “conflicted from being trial counsel.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`The Court will deny the eleventh-hour request to vacate trial on September 6–9.
`
`The trial dates in this matter were set in this case after the Court consulted with counsel
`
`on availability and potential conflicts. In its March 23, 2023, Order setting trial, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1631 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`parties were instructed to file a notice of any bona fide conflict with the trial dates within
`
`seven (7) days of the Order. (Doc. 1546). Mr. Cambria’s Motion for Relief is over three
`
`months past this deadline, and he offers no excuse as to why the Court was not informed
`
`of his conflict sooner. In the interim, potential jurors have been informed of the trial
`
`dates and are currently responding to questionnaires that in part relate to their own
`
`possible conflicts with the dates of trial.
`
`
`
`The Court is also not persuaded that Ms. Paris is unable to assume trial
`
`responsibilities for two and a half days while Mr. Cambria attends his daughter’s
`
`wedding festivities. Ms. Paris’s firm profile states that complex trial litigation is a focus
`
`of her practice and that during her seventeen-year legal career she has represented clients
`
`in civil and criminal matters in federal and state courts. The Court is confident that Ms.
`
`Paris is more than qualified to first-chair two and a half days of trial in the event that Mr.
`
`Cambria cannot attend.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED that “Defendant Michael Lacey’s Unopposed Motion for Relief
`
`from Trial Schedule Conflict” (Doc. 1629) is denied.
`
`Dated this 6th day of July, 2023.
`
`
`Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Mr. Cambria cites to an October 3, 2018, Order granting the Government leave to
`appear telephonically for a motion hearing as evidence of Ms. Cook’s conflict. The filing
`does not support the assertion that Ms. Cook is conflicted from serving as trial counsel.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
