Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2468 Page 1 of 22
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2469 Page 2 of 22
` 1
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` v.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, .
` .
`Plaintiff, . No. 18-cr-4683-GPC
`.
`. January 21, 2021
`. 2:00 p.m.
` .
`JACOB BYCHAK,
` .
`MARK MANOOGIAN,
` .
`MOHAMMED ABDUL QAYYUM,
` .
`PETR PACAS,
` .
`Defendants.
`. San Diego, California
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONIC STATUS HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE GONZALO P. CURIEL
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For the Defendant
`JACOB BYCHAK:
`
`United States Attorney's Office
`By: SABRINA L. FEVE, ESQ.
` ASHLEY GOFF, ESQ.
` MELANIE K. PIERSON, ESQ.
`880 Front Street, Room 6293
`San Diego, California 92101
`
`Law Office of David W. Wiechert
`By: JESSICA C. MUNK, ESQ.
`115 Avenida Miramar
`San Clemente, California 92672
`
`For the Defendant
`MARK MANOOGIAN:
`
`Mintz Levin
`By: RANDY K. JONES, ESQ.
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130
`
`24
`
`///
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2470 Page 3 of 22
` 2
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):
`
` 2
`
`
`
`For the Defendant
`MOHAMMED ABDUL
`QAYYUM:
`
`
`
`For the Defendant
`PETR PACAS:
`
`Bienert, Miller & Katzman, P.L.C.
`By: JAMES D. RIDDET, ESQ.
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`San Clemente, California 92673
`
`Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert
` Nessim Drooks & Lincenberg
`By: NAEUN RIM, ESQ.
` GARY S. LINCENBERG, ESQ.
`1875 Century Park East
`Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Chari L. Bowery, RPR, CRR
`USDC Clerk's Office
`333 West Broadway, Suite 420
`San Diego, California 92101
`chari_bowery@casd.uscourts.gov
`
`24
`
`Reported by Stenotype, Transcribed by Computer
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2471 Page 4 of 22
` 3
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; JANUARY 21, 2021; 2:00 P.M.
`
`-o0o-
`
`THE CLERK: Calling matter number six on the
`
` 4
`
`calendar, Case Number 18-cr-4683, U.S.A. v. the Bychak
`
` 5
`
`defendants, on for telephonic status hearing.
`
` 6
`
`THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon. I will ask
`
` 7
`
`counsel for Mr. Bychak to enter their appearance.
`
` 8
`
`MS. MUNK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jessica Munk
`
` 9
`
`on behalf of Jacob Bychak, who is present on the phone.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon, Ms. Munk.
`
`And good afternoon, Mr. Bychak.
`
`DEFENDANT BYCHAK: Good afternoon.
`
`MR. JONES: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Randy Jones
`
`14
`
`on behalf of Mark Manoogian, who is also on the phone.
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Jones and
`
`16
`
`Mr. Manoogian.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`And then, on behalf of Mr. Qayyum?
`
`MR. RIDDET: Good afternoon, Your Honor. James
`
`19
`
`Riddet for Mr. Qayyum. He is on the line with us.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon.
`
`And as to Mr. Pacas?
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. Gary
`
`23
`
`Lincenberg for Mr. Pacas, who is on the line.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
`
`We have set this status hearing to see if we can arrive at
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2472 Page 5 of 22
` 4
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`a trial date. We last held a hearing on December 17th, when
`
` 2
`
`the Court first broached the subject of a trial date. Because
`
` 3
`
`of the number of attorneys involved in this litigation, counsel
`
` 4
`
`asked for an opportunity to go over their schedules and offer
`
` 5
`
`some dates in the fall, late 2021.
`
` 6
`
`Let me inquire at this time, the parties had that
`
` 7
`
`opportunity and, having done so, are there dates that you would
`
` 8
`
`propose? Ms. Munk?
`
` 9
`
`MS. PIERSON: Melanie Pierson here, appearing on
`
`10
`
`behalf of the United States, along with a Sabrina Feve and
`
`11
`
`Ashley Goff.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Yes.
`
`MS. PIERSON: The parties did meet and confer on
`
`14
`
`this. The defense advised us that the convenient date that
`
`15
`
`they would agree upon would be a date in May of 2022, which was
`
`16
`
`a date that the government felt was too far. So the parties
`
`17
`
`were unable to reach an agreement as to a convenient date.
`
`18
`
`The government would prefer to go forward in the fall of
`
`19
`
`this year, or as soon as the Court could, you know, get us a
`
`20
`
`time in the courtroom with a jury.
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, kicking out to 2022
`
`22
`
`would make it easier for the Court to work its way out of the
`
`23
`
`backlog of trials that it will be facing. We still have about
`
`24
`
`three or four months, I would think, where we would be limited
`
`25
`
`to one trial per month, and we will be adding to the number of
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2473 Page 6 of 22
` 5
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`cases that will be backlogged. So I would be inclined to set
`
` 2
`
`the case no earlier than the end of this year.
`
` 3
`
`But let me inquire as to defense counsels' reasoning for
`
` 4
`
`requesting a May 2022 trial date. Who would like to address
`
` 5
`
`that?
`
` 6
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, this is Gary Lincenberg.
`
` 7
`
`I will take a stab at it.
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: As the Court can imagine, given its
`
`10
`
`own calendar issues and all of the mess generated from COVID,
`
`11
`
`all of our trials that were set to go in 2020 have gotten
`
`12
`
`pushed, and so there's just a logjam of activity, without going
`
`13
`
`through every trial date of all of the current counsel.
`
`14
`
`I will give the Court one example. Mr. Riddet's firm and
`
`15
`
`my firm have what is expected to be close to a three-month
`
`16
`
`trial in Arizona, a criminal case, that was supposed to start
`
`17
`
`in this past summer -- actually, earlier -- then got kicked,
`
`18
`
`then got kicked. Now it is in April; looks like it is going to
`
`19
`
`get kicked again. It is an older case than this one. There
`
`20
`
`are six defendants, numerous agents and witnesses and so forth.
`
`21
`
`And the hope is that we can get that in in the fall of 2021,
`
`22
`
`which would heat everything up.
`
`23
`
`Without taking up the time to talk about all of the other
`
`24
`
`matters that have likewise been kicked, it is -- and then when
`
`25
`
`we start looking at early 2022, Ms. Munk's firm has a trial
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2474 Page 7 of 22
` 6
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`that is expected to be a lengthy healthcare fraud trial, which
`
` 2
`
`is already scheduled for February of 2022.
`
` 3
`
`So our thinking was let's at least set a date, and if we
`
` 4
`
`have a date in the calendar in May of 2022, at least then, when
`
` 5
`
`other judges say, "I have to kick your case," we can tell the
`
` 6
`
`judge, "No, May of 2022 doesn't work. We have a trial before
`
` 7
`
`Judge Curiel." And at least we will have that date in the
`
` 8
`
`books and can make other things have to work around that.
`
` 9
`
`THE COURT: So, let me ask, at this moment, what is
`
`10
`
`the starting dates for the trials that you are referencing?
`
`11
`
`This Arizona case is going to be in the fall of this year, did
`
`12
`
`you say?
`
`13
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: No. So, I will give the Court an
`
`14
`
`example of my calendar. I have, first, a state court but a
`
`15
`
`preference case due to the age of my clients that was supposed
`
`16
`
`to start in March. It keeps getting kicked off every two
`
`17
`
`months. It just got kicked off to late February, and we know
`
`18
`
`it's going to get kicked again.
`
`19
`
`I now have two federal trials both set in April at the
`
`20
`
`same time because judges have just been kicking it without
`
`21
`
`asking anybody's schedules, and I understand that because it's
`
`22
`
`unclear how real those dates are.
`
`23
`
`But one is before Judge Hatter, in which other counsel on
`
`24
`
`this call are also involved, and that is set now for April. It
`
`25
`
`is a three-defendant case.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2475 Page 8 of 22
` 7
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`The one in Arizona is a six-defendant case currently set
`
` 2
`
`in April. And there's now a continuance motion, which -- the
`
` 3
`
`Court hasn't granted it yet, but I think the Court is going to
`
` 4
`
`have to because of COVID reasons. And we are looking to start
`
` 5
`
`it in September, and it is a three-month trial.
`
` 6
`
`I have some other dates on my calendar that I would
`
` 7
`
`suggest that are either looser, or civil.
`
` 8
`
`Mr. Wiechert's firm, Ms. Munk's firm, informed me they
`
` 9
`
`have a March 2021 RIPA case (phonetic); they have a May 2021
`
`10
`
`federal murder case before Judge Carter, in Orange County; they
`
`11
`
`have a February 2022 healthcare fraud trial.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`My partner, Ms. Rim, has a three-week trial set in August.
`
`I know some of Mr. Riddet and Mr. Bienert's calendar, but
`
`14
`
`Mr. Riddet can speak to it if the Court needs further details.
`
`15
`
`And I believe Mr. Jones indicated that, from a trial
`
`16
`
`perspective, his calendar is largely clear.
`
`17
`
`So, looking at this, this is what led us to propose
`
`18
`
`May 2022 because any earlier date, I am just not sure it is
`
`19
`
`going to be a real date because of all of the other traffic jam
`
`20
`
`of trials.
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Well, it sounds like the fall wouldn't be
`
`22
`
`practicable. It wouldn't be likely that we would be able to
`
`23
`
`get this case tried in the fall.
`
`24
`
`But let me ask, why wouldn't we be able to try it next
`
`25
`
`February?
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2476 Page 9 of 22
` 8
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: Well, next February works for me,
`
` 2
`
`but Ms. Munk and Mr. Wiechert say they have a healthcare fraud
`
` 3
`
`trial set in February of 2022.
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
`I know of another light -- go ahead.
`
`THE COURT: That's a case where the trial date has
`
` 6
`
`been scheduled; is that right?
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`MS. MUNK: Yes, Your Honor. Hi, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Hi, Ms. Munk.
`
`MS. MUNK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sorry. I
`
`10
`
`don't want to interrupt. It is so hard on the phone.
`
`11
`
`That has been continued. It is before Judge Walter, in
`
`12
`
`the Central District, in L.A., and it has been set for
`
`13
`
`February 15, 2022. That is expected to go to trial.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`THE COURT: When was it set for trial?
`
`MS. MUNK: I want to say it was set -- there was a
`
`16
`
`stipulation, and I actually wasn't involved in that, but I
`
`17
`
`believe the stipulation got filed over a month ago or a month
`
`18
`
`or two ago. It's been set for a little bit.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: How long is that case supposed to take?
`
`MS. MUNK: It is estimated for at least a month. I
`
`21
`
`actually think it will be a little longer than that.
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I think somebody wanted to be
`
`23
`
`heard with respect to where we stand, and I stopped them in
`
`24
`
`their tracks. Did someone want to provide their observations?
`
`25
`
`MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor. This is Randy Jones.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2477 Page 10 of 22
` 9
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`Reaching out to the government, the government indicated
`
` 2
`
`their case in chief is expected to last 10 to 12, 10 to 15
`
` 3
`
`days.
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
`THE COURT: Is that right, Ms. Pierson?
`
`MS. PIERSON: That is correct.
`
`And the government has a very serious speedy trial
`
` 7
`
`consideration here. I cited to defense counsel the case of
`
` 8
`
`United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d. 1263, where the Court held
`
` 9
`
`that there was a speedy trial violation because the Court put
`
`10
`
`off trial for 112 days. And the Court's opinion basically says
`
`11
`
`that the Court can't credit vague statements by a party's
`
`12
`
`lawyers about special scheduling conflicts or, you know, that
`
`13
`
`there must be an inquiry to determine whether the parties
`
`14
`
`really need a continuance, how long a delay, and what
`
`15
`
`adjustments can be made with respect to the trial calendars or
`
`16
`
`other plans of counsel.
`
`17
`
`The government really wants to get to trial sooner rather
`
`18
`
`than later. This case has been pending in this court for over
`
`19
`
`two years and was under investigation five years before that.
`
`20
`
`The facts of this case are old. The witnesses' memories are
`
`21
`
`dimming. It is important for the United States to get this
`
`22
`
`case to trial sooner rather than later.
`
`23
`
`While everyone gave their trial dates, I wrote them down,
`
`24
`
`and there are trial dates in March and February. There are
`
`25
`
`trial dates in April. And that's all that is for sure. There
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2478 Page 11 of 22
` 10
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`are no other trial dates set. There was a trial date noted in
`
` 2
`
`August, but there was nothing noted in the fall. No one said
`
` 3
`
`that they have a trial now scheduled for October, November, or
`
` 4
`
`December, or September --
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
`THE COURT: I thought --
`
`MS. PIERSON: -- so it would seem that that range
`
` 7
`
`appears to be wide open for this trial.
`
` 8
`
`The government believes that our case in chief could be
`
` 9
`
`presented in 10 to 15 days, assuming -- and that estimate
`
`10
`
`assumes cross-examination that is about the same length as the
`
`11
`
`direct examination. Given that, that would be our estimate of
`
`12
`
`our case in chief, and we would like to move forward sooner
`
`13
`
`than later.
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: So, let me inquire of defense counsel, is
`
`15
`
`that true; currently, there are no trial dates scheduled for
`
`16
`
`counsel in the months of October, November, and December?
`
`17
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, on behalf of my firm --
`
`18
`
`this is Mr. Lincenberg -- what I indicated to the Court was
`
`19
`
`there was no trial date set, but there is a motion to continue
`
`20
`
`the Arizona case to September. And as the Court knows,
`
`21
`
`Arizona, like California, is a red-hot state with COVID right
`
`22
`
`now, very restricted. And this is a six-defendant case that is
`
`23
`
`a bit of a logistical nightmare during COVID because, you know,
`
`24
`
`you are talking about 20 lawyers in the courtroom and lots of
`
`25
`
`jurors and so forth.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2479 Page 12 of 22
` 11
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`And so the date that was agreed upon by the parties, if
`
` 2
`
`the Court grants the motion -- it has not yet been granted --
`
` 3
`
`is for it to begin in September, and it would then last for
`
` 4
`
`about three months.
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
`MS. MUNK: And, Your Honor, this is Jessica --
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: Excuse me, Ms. Munk; I was just
`
` 7
`
`going to finish up and say that trial is one in which
`
` 8
`
`Mr. Bienert and Ms. Bernstein will be lead trial counsel for
`
` 9
`
`defendant number one out of six defendants, and I am lead
`
`10
`
`counsel for defendant number three in that case.
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: And did I hear Ms. Munk? Were you going
`
`12
`
`to say something? Or Ms. Rim?
`
`13
`
`MS. MUNK: Sorry, Your Honor. I just wanted to weigh
`
`14
`
`in that Mr. Wiechert -- I possibly will be helping him with
`
`15
`
`this, but he has an in-custody first degree murder case that is
`
`16
`
`currently set for Judge Carter in the Central District. It is
`
`17
`
`set for May, but given, again, because of COVID and stuff, I
`
`18
`
`think he is expecting that that is going to get continued to
`
`19
`
`the fall. It hasn't yet, but I just want to note that it is an
`
`20
`
`in-custody first degree murder case.
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: All right. Well, at this point, there
`
`22
`
`are certainly lots of moving parts, and it is a dynamic
`
`23
`
`situation, given COVID. And due to this wretched state of
`
`24
`
`affairs that we find ourselves in, I expect that these types of
`
`25
`
`hearings will be held throughout the land, and there are going
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2480 Page 13 of 22
` 12
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`to be attorneys saying, "Well, Judge Curiel said this," or
`
` 2
`
`"Judge Carter said this." And at this point, as a starting
`
` 3
`
`point, we have to look at what has been scheduled.
`
` 4
`
`So, to the extent that something has been scheduled, then
`
` 5
`
`I am not going to place a burden on counsel and double set.
`
` 6
`
`But to the extent that what we are talking about is the
`
` 7
`
`possibility of scheduling trials nine, ten months from now, it
`
` 8
`
`doesn't seem logical, rational, to operate in that manner. And
`
` 9
`
`at this point, I would be prepared to set the matter for trial
`
`10
`
`in October so that we can have this out of the way. Because I
`
`11
`
`expect that it is not going to get any easier to schedule
`
`12
`
`cases, and as such, to the extent that the Court now sets this
`
`13
`
`case for trial -- and I will certainly be pushing the
`
`14
`
`government to put on its case in chief in far less than 15
`
`15
`
`days, and the question is whether or not 10 days is even
`
`16
`
`necessary -- but I certainly will push to have this case tried
`
`17
`
`within two or three weeks. And then, with that, the parties
`
`18
`
`can, hopefully, set their cases for trial in late November,
`
`19
`
`December, January, and not worry about our case. But it just
`
`20
`
`doesn't seem wise to think about all the if's and possibilities
`
`21
`
`as far as rescheduling of cases.
`
`22
`
`To the extent at this time that there is not any dates
`
`23
`
`that have been set in October, November, December, I am just
`
`24
`
`going to go ahead and make a decision to set this case for
`
`25
`
`October.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2481 Page 14 of 22
` 13
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`MR. RIDDET: Your Honor, may I just -- if I may just
`
` 2
`
`briefly be heard, again. I hear where the Court is coming
`
` 3
`
`from. I think it makes sense in many ways to set a date in
`
` 4
`
`there. I am not sure what position that puts Mr. Bienert and
`
` 5
`
`Ms. Bernstein, as well as myself, in with regard to the matter
`
` 6
`
`in Arizona, where all of these different counsel got together
`
` 7
`
`to work out a date for this lengthy trial that keeps getting
`
` 8
`
`pushed along a bit.
`
` 9
`
`Do I now have to tell the Court and counsel in this case
`
`10
`
`that, while we agreed to the September date as the first
`
`11
`
`available date that would work for everybody, we now have
`
`12
`
`another judge set another trial? Or should -- is it that the
`
`13
`
`Court's -- is the Court okay if we just leave this case set for
`
`14
`
`October, but, if the case in Arizona gets pushed to September,
`
`15
`
`just to advise this Court of that and go back to the wheel?
`
`16
`
`I am not sure what my obligations are to the other Court,
`
`17
`
`and that's why, while I get it, why both the government and the
`
`18
`
`Court wants to set it in October, we know right now that May is
`
`19
`
`a clean date, and that's why we are arguing for May.
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: When was this proposed motion to continue
`
`21
`
`presented?
`
`22
`
`MR. RIDDET: I think the filing date was -- it was
`
`23
`
`within January. It was within the last several weeks.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: And who is the presiding judge?
`
`MR. RIDDET: It is Judge Bernovich,
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2482 Page 15 of 22
` 14
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`B-E-R-N-O-V-I-C-H, in Phoenix. It is a fairly high-profile
`
` 2
`
`case. It is called, colloquially, The Back Page Case.
`
` 3
`
`THE COURT: And are the defendants in custody or are
`
` 4
`
`they out on bail?
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
`MR. RIDDET: The defendants are on bail.
`
`THE COURT: What date was the case filed?
`
`MR. RIDDET: I believe 2018. I don't have the date
`
` 8
`
`in front of me. I believe it was in 2018. And we are on about
`
` 9
`
`our fourth trial date right now, fourth or fifth trial date,
`
`10
`
`the last several being pushed because of COVID.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MS. RIM: This is Naeun Rim.
`
`It was April 2018, so about five months before this case.
`
`13
`
`Maybe seven, actually.
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: So, let me ask, to the extent that it was
`
`15
`
`granted and it would start in September, it is expected it
`
`16
`
`would finish by December?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. RIDDET: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: And then, with respect to January, did
`
`19
`
`somebody comment that they have a case starting in January?
`
`20
`
`MR. RIDDET: I believe Ms. Munk said they have a case
`
`21
`
`in February.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MS. MUNK: Yes, that's correct.
`
`THE COURT: Is there any reason why we wouldn't be
`
`24
`
`able to try the case in January?
`
`25
`
`MS. MUNK: Well, Your Honor, I would imagine we will
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2483 Page 16 of 22
` 15
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`be doing prep for this other trial.
`
` 2
`
`I know the government talked about or Your Honor talked
`
` 3
`
`about the government's case finishing within two to three
`
` 4
`
`weeks. We expect that we will probably have some time as well
`
` 5
`
`for a defense case. We don't completely know what that is, but
`
` 6
`
`I think also factoring in time for that would be reasonable.
`
` 7
`
`So this might end up being a three- to four-week trial.
`
` 8
`
`THE COURT: So, going back to January of 2022, what
`
` 9
`
`would the problem be with a trial set in January? It would be
`
`10
`
`that you wouldn't be able to prepare for a February case?
`
`11
`
`12
`
`MS. MUNK: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`But, also, that I am not sure that the trial would
`
`13
`
`conclude in time for the February case, as well.
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: And keeping in mind that it's going to be
`
`15
`
`impossible to just seamlessly, precisely end up being able to
`
`16
`
`give everybody the time frames for how long the trials are
`
`17
`
`going to last. We are all going to have to be somewhat
`
`18
`
`flexible, even this Court, because of the number of attorneys
`
`19
`
`that are involved in this litigation. So it is impossible to
`
`20
`
`foretell exactly when these cases are going to begin or
`
`21
`
`conclude.
`
`22
`
`All we can do is the best we can to set trial dates that
`
`23
`
`look -- if not plausible, look like they would be reasonable in
`
`24
`
`terms of being able to start, and with all the attorneys, with
`
`25
`
`adequate time to prepare.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2484 Page 17 of 22
` 16
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`At this juncture, given that this motion to continue has
`
` 2
`
`been pending for two weeks, and there's been no action on the
`
` 3
`
`motion, I am prepared to set the matter in October.
`
` 4
`
`Nature abhors a vacuum, and at this point, the hole in the
`
` 5
`
`October trial schedule is going to be filled. So I am prepared
`
` 6
`
`to set it for October 4th.
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`MR. JONES: Your Honor, can I say something first?
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`
`MR. JONES: In light of all the uncertainties, we
`
`10
`
`are, as Mr. Lincenberg said, are clear we can set May 2022, and
`
`11
`
`everybody set -- you've got four defendants. None are in
`
`12
`
`custody. The case, as government counsel said, has been two
`
`13
`
`years, so a difference of three or four months is not going to
`
`14
`
`make a difference in this type of case, if we set it in
`
`15
`
`May 2022.
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: Well, I don't know if I agree with that
`
`17
`
`because it looks like everyone is free in October, November,
`
`18
`
`December, unless this case is continued until September; and,
`
`19
`
`if it is continued to September, if it actually goes forward,
`
`20
`
`which we don't know the answer to that.
`
`21
`
`So it seems to me, the longer we put this off, the more we
`
`22
`
`will encounter situations where one of the defense attorneys
`
`23
`
`reports that they have a client who is in custody, who is
`
`24
`
`awaiting trial, and whose trial has now been scheduled in May
`
`25
`
`or April, or in June, because it started in April and it is not
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2485 Page 18 of 22
` 17
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`clear if they will have enough time to prepare for the May
`
` 2
`
`trial; or, to the extent we have a May trial, they won't have
`
` 3
`
`enough time to start their June trial.
`
` 4
`
`So, there's all these different variations in themes that
`
` 5
`
`will potentially impact any trial date that we give in the next
`
` 6
`
`year while we try to return to some sense of normalcy.
`
` 7
`
`So, rather than October, I will set the matter for
`
` 8
`
`December, December 6th. And then we will go as close to
`
` 9
`
`Christmas as we can, and then, if necessary, we will go up to
`
`10
`
`Christmas. In order to avoid a situation where we are not done
`
`11
`
`by Christmas, let's start by November 30. And then we will
`
`12
`
`have motions in limine on November 18, at 2:00 p.m.
`
`13
`
`With respect to Jencks and Giglio, what is the
`
`14
`
`government's proposal with respect to turning over that
`
`15
`
`information, if they haven't already? Ms. Pierson?
`
`16
`
`MS. PIERSON: Sorry. I was on mute, and I was
`
`17
`
`talking away.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`We will turn it over a month before trial.
`
`THE COURT: So, that will be October 29th. The 30th
`
`20
`
`is a Saturday. So I will direct that it be produced on the
`
`21
`
`29th.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`MS. PIERSON: Okay.
`
`THE COURT: And then motions in limine will be due on
`
`24
`
`November 4, with responses on November 11.
`
`25
`
`And is there anything else to address at this moment?
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2486 Page 19 of 22
` 18
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
`MS. PIERSON: I would ask the Court to order
`
` 2
`
`reciprocal discovery, please.
`
` 3
`
`THE COURT: What is the position of the defense? Do
`
` 4
`
`you propose to provide it a month before trial as well?
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, this is Gary Lincenberg.
`
`It's hard to look down the counsel table and see who wants
`
` 7
`
`to jump up to speak first.
`
` 8
`
`But that's fine, to the extent that we have reciprocal
`
` 9
`
`discovery. That's fine. That date is fine.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: So, that will be the order.
`
`And then I expect that any number of things may happen
`
`12
`
`between now and October, and I expect that I will likely hear
`
`13
`
`from them after counsel have had an opportunity to meet and
`
`14
`
`confer.
`
`15
`
`So, that being the case, at this moment, let me advise the
`
`16
`
`defendants, Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, Mr. Pacas,
`
`17
`
`that you are to appear here in court on November 18th, at
`
`18
`
`2:00 p.m., for motions in limine; and then November 30th, at
`
`19
`
`8:30 a.m. for trial.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Do you understand, Mr. Bychak?
`
`DEFENDANT BYCHAK: Yes, I understand, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And Mr. Manoogian?
`
`DEFENDANT MANOOGIAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Qayyum?
`
`DEFENDANT QAYYUM: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2487 Page 20 of 22
` 19
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`THE COURT: And Mr. Pacas?
`
`DEFENDANT PACAS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And let me inquire that the parties agree
`
` 4
`
`to proceed in this manner; that is, telephonically versus
`
` 5
`
`in-person, given the COVID pandemic and the standing emergency
`
` 6
`
`order which prevents, prohibits any in-court proceedings? Do
`
` 7
`
`you all waive your constitutional right to be present in court
`
` 8
`
`for this hearing today?
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Mr. Bychak?
`
`DEFENDANT BYCHAK: Yes, I do, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Manoogian?
`
`DEFENDANT MANOOGIAN: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Qayyum? Mr. Qayyum? Did we lose
`
`14
`
`Mr. Qayyum?
`
`15
`
`MR. RIDDET: I am sorry, Your Honor. I don't hear
`
`16
`
`him answering up when you are asking the question. I can
`
`17
`
`answer for him, if we have lost the connection with him.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`DEFENDANT QAYYUM: I am here.
`
`MR. RIDDET: There he is.
`
`THE COURT: Do you waive your appearance here in
`
`21
`
`court, given the pandemic, sir?
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`correct?
`
`DEFENDANT QAYYUM: Yes, sir. Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And Mr. Pacas?
`
`DEFENDANT PACAS: Yes, Your Honor. Just for today,
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2488 Page 21 of 22
` 20
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
`THE COURT: Yes. Just for today.
`
`DEFENDANT PACAS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: And then the Court will find excludable
`
` 4
`
`time between now and October -- I am sorry -- November 18th,
`
` 5
`
`given the current state of affairs relating to the COVID-19
`
` 6
`
`pandemic, the judicial emergency that has been declared on
`
` 7
`
`numerous occasions since last March by Chief Judge Larry Alan
`
` 8
`
`Burns, the backlog in cases which has prevented the Court from
`
` 9
`
`setting a trial earlier than November 18; the mere fact that we
`
`10
`
`spent 35 minutes attempting to balance the respective
`
`11
`
`obligations that the attorneys have to arrive at a trial date,
`
`12
`
`given the backlog not only in this court but in courts
`
`13
`
`throughout the country. So that will be under
`
`14
`
`3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
`
`15
`
`Is there anything else to address at this time from the
`
`16
`
`defense side?
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. LINCENBERG: This is Mr. Lincenberg.
`
`No, Your Honor. And thank you for your patience in
`
`19
`
`working through this.
`
`20
`
`MR. JONES: No, Your Honor, on behalf of
`
`21
`
`Mr. Manoogian.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`THE COURT: Anything from the government's side?
`
`MS. PIERSON: Is the Court specifically finding the
`
`24
`
`granting of this continuance outweighs the interest of the
`
`25
`
`public and defendants to a speedy trial?
`
`
`
`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 240-2 Filed 06/11/21 PageID.2489 Page 22 of 22
` 21
`18-cr-4683-GPC
`
`THE COURT: I do make that specific finding.
`
`That concludes this proceeding. Take care and stay safe.
`
`ALL: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`(End of proceedings at 2:34 p.m.)
`
`-o0o-
`
` C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that I am a duly appointed,
`
` 9
`
`qualified and acting official Court Reporter for the United
`
`10
`
`States District Court; that the foregoing is a true and correct
`
`11
`
`transcript of the proceedings had in the aforementioned cause;
`
`12
`
`that said transcript is a true and correct transcription of my
`
`13
`
`stenographic notes; and that the format used herein complies
`
`14
`
`with rules and requirements of the United States Judicial
`
`15
`
`Conference.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`
`
`DATED: June 7, 2021, at San Diego, California.
`
` /s/ Chari L. Bowery
` _______________________________
` Chari L. Bowery
` CSR No. 9944, RPR, CRR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
