Farhane v. USA
Filing
43
ORDER granting [287 in 5-cr-673] JOINT LETTER MOTION addressed to Judge Loretta A. Preska from AUSA Jun Xiang dated January 27, 2025 re: Proposed Schedule. The Court hereby adopts the parties' proposed schedule regarding briefing. The deadlin e for Petitioner to file his brief is March 14, 2025. The Government shall file its opposition brief by April 11, 2025. Petitioner shall file any reply by April 25, 2025. The Court also hereby adopts the parties' proposed Compliance schedule. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 3/14/2025., Replies due by 4/25/2025., Responses due by 4/11/2025) (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 1/28/2025) (tg)
U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney
Southern District of New York
The Jacob K. Javits Federal Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
January 27, 2025
BY ECF
The Honorable Loretta A. Preska
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re:
United States v. Farhane, 05 Cr. 673 (LAP)
United States v. Farhane, 18 Civ. 11973 (LAP)
Dear Judge Preska:
The Government respectfully submits this joint letter from the parties proposing a schedule
in this matter.
The parties will continue to seek to narrow the issues prior to motion practice. The parties
do not, however, anticipate reaching complete agreement regarding the extent to which the
Petitioner has waived the attorney-client privilege through his ineffective assistance claim.
Because the scope of waiver will affect the information that predecessor counsel will be compelled
to disclose to the parties—and, consequently, the parties’ positions with respect to the need to
develop evidence, seek any discovery, and engage in any further litigation—the parties propose
that this issue be litigated first, on the following briefing schedule:
March 14, 2025 Petitioner’s brief
April 11, 2025 Government’s opposition
April 25, 2025 Petitioner’s reply
The parties anticipate the briefs will address the scope of the subject matter that predecessor
counsel will be required to disclose by affidavit and whether otherwise privileged documents
relevant to the § 2255 petition must also be produced to the parties. The parties propose that, once
the Court has ruled and issued an order to predecessor counsel consistent with its ruling,
predecessor counsel be given 60 days to comply (“Compliance”). Thereafter, the parties propose
the following schedule:
30 Days from Compliance Mutual disclosure of affirmative fact evidence (including
witness statements and documents) that either party intends
Page 2
to offer under Rule 7 of the Rules Governing 2255
Proceedings for the United States District Courts
60 Days from Compliance Mutual disclosure of rebuttal fact evidence (including
witness statements and documents) under Rule 7
90 Days from Compliance If rebuttal fact evidence includes new witnesses, mutual
disclosure of any further witness statements
120 Days from Compliance Mutual expert disclosures
150 Days from Compliance Mutual rebuttal expert disclosures
180 Days from Compliance Joint letter proposing a schedule for any additional motions
and/or an evidentiary hearing. To the extent that either party
wishes to move for discovery under Rule 6, that request must
be made in time for resolution before this date.
*
* *
The parties thank the Court for its consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIELLE R. SASSOON
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
by:
/s/ Jun Xiang
Jun Xiang
Assistant United States Attorney
(212) 637-2289
CC:
Counsel for Abderrahmane Farhane
The Court hereby adopts the parties' proposed schedule regarding
briefing. The deadline for Petitioner to file his brief is March
14, 2025. The Government shall file its opposition brief by April
11, 2025. Petitioner shall file any reply by April 25, 2025. The
Court also hereby adopts the parties' proposed Compliance schedule.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2025
___________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA, U.S.D.J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?