Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Kevin Rapp, Margaret Perlmeter, and Reginald Jones Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, present and released Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr. and Erin McCampbell Paris (telephonic), Retained Defendant-2: James Larkin, present and released Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained Defendant-3: Scott Spear, present and released Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained Defendant-4: John Brunst, present and released Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg and Gopi Panchapakesan (telephonic), Retained Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, present and released Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, not present and released (presence waived) Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment (telephonic)

Other than the conflicts stated on the record by Mr. Beinert and Mr. Lincenberg, Defendants do not object to the new schedule.

The parties are directed to review the prior juror questionnaires and submit changes, if any, to the Court by not later than October 12, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Hearing re: Juror Questionnaires on January 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. to be held via ZOOM.

Court Reporter Christine Coaly Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia SH: 22 mins Start: 11:02 AM Stop: 11:24 AM

There will be a conference to address the means to achieve the five goals set forth in Rule 16(a), Fed. R. Civ.

P. The Court intends to limit and constrain, among other things, the “comprehensive electronic and paper discovery,” which the parties envision in their letter of September 20, 2021 in view of the proportionality and other considerations set forth in Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ.

P. In that regard, the circumstance that there were 95 depositions and approximately 200,000 pages of documents in the federal civil rights action should streamline discovery in this action, not prolong it as the letter to the Court suggests.

Allowing free-wheeling discovery coupled with periodic pretrial conferences is no way to manage a case.

The answer is achieving a common understanding at the outset and then holding the parties to limitations set by the Court.

Under Rule 1006, a “proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined by the court.” Fed. R. Evid.

The proponent is required to make the originals or duplicates available to the opposing party for examination or copying at a reasonable time and place.

The Ninth Circuit has “long held that such pedagogical devices should be used only as a testimonial aid, and should not be admitted into evidence or otherwise be used by the jury during deliberations.” Id. at 1053-54 (citations omitted).

The Court finds that this is a summary exhibit that properly summarizes the transfer of money and is admissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.

The Court agrees, and because documents prepared by Carl Ferrer may be subject to legitimate cross-examination, Exhibits B and C may not be supported by admissible evidence.

Michael Lacey,et al., Defendants.

of the exhibits until the case has been appeals, pursuant to LRCiv 79.1.

That the exhibits marked and/or admitted in the above-entitled case at the time of the Jury Trial are returned to respective counsel.

Counsel are directed to retain custody completely terminated, including all of Dated this 14th day September, 2021.

District Court Execytive/Clerk of Court aes Clerk Elaine Garcia, Deputy respective Exhibits returned to Date UI [202 Date

Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp, Reginald Jones and Daniel Boyle Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr., Retained Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg and Gopi Panchapakesan, Retained Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released - Present Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

Discussion held regarding Defendants’ Motion for Judgement of Acquittal, or in the Alternative, a Mistrial.

Opening statement presented by Defendant James Larkin.

Opening statement presented by Defendants Andrew Padilla, Joy Vaught, and Michael Lacey.

Government case: Special Agent Brian Fichtner sworn and examined.

Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter, Kevin Rapp, Reginald Jones and Daniel Boyle Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr., Retained Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg, Retained Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released - Present Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

11:59 a.m. Jury panel members are excused from the courtroom and court remains in session.

4:21 p.m. Jury panel members are excused from the courtroom and court remains in session.

The Court affirms with each juror individually that the answers given during voir dire were truthful.

Court Reporter Barbara Stockford (AM) Christine Coaley (PM) Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter (telephonic), Kevin Rapp, Reginald Jones and Daniel Boyle Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr. and Erin McCampbell Paris (telephonic), Retained Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Present Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. (telephonic) and Whitney Bernstein, Retained Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present (telephonic) Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained (telephonic) Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg (telephonic) and Gopi Panchapakesan, Retained Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released- Not Present (Presence waived) Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released – Not Present (Presence waived) Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

Discussion held regarding Statement of the case, Jenks Material, Preliminary Jury Instructions, and Exhibits.

The Government’s request to read the statement of the case during voir dire or in opening instructions is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Counsel, paralegals, assistants and defendants take a Covid test on August 30, 2021 and provide proof to the court prior to the start of trial.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties provide the Courtroom Clerk with an electronic copy of their exhibits no later than August 27, 2021.

The proposed strikes for cause with objections provided by the parties are reviewed with counsel and an additional 26 jurors are stricken.

At the request of the Defendants, the emails from counsel with the proposed strikes and objections shall be filed and made part of the record.

Over objection by the Government, IT IS ORDERED that any party intending to use a power point or exhibits for opening statements will need to provide a copy of the power point and exhibits to all counsel 24 hours in advance.

Additionally, each day, the parties shall give the Court the list of witnesses along with who will be conducting direct examination and who will be leading the cross-examination.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Jury Trial presently set for August 23, 2021 is continued until September 7, 2021.

... a statement is defamatory, courts “‘will not strain to interpret (allegedly defamatory works) ‘in their mildest and most inoffensive sense to hold them nonlibelous,’” but they also “will not strain to find a defamatory interpretation where none ...

. . . None of the victims who testified was looking at a watch when he or she was assaulted, nor did the jogger have any memory of the exact time she left her apartment.

) Lederer later tells Fairstein that none of the Five’s statements match “the central facts of the crime,” and a subsequent scene shows a detective coaching one of the Five about changing his statement.