United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division
OMNIBUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTIONS TO STAY
(OR TO EXTEND THE PRETRIAL MOTION FILING DEADLINE) AND TO
CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY
JONATHAN GOODMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
federal grand jury indicted Defendant John Holland
(“Holland”) on four counts relating to a criminal
fraud scheme of more than $400 million at Tenet Healthcare
Corporation (“Tenet”), where he was the senior
vice president of operations. The Undersigned recently
entered an Order [ECF No. 36] denying Holland's motion to
transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b). United States
District Judge Jose E. Martinez referred to me two other
motions filed by Holland: (1) his motion to stay the
proceedings until the Court decided the venue-transfer motion
(or to extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions) and
(2) his motion to designate the case as complex, continue the
trial date and exclude the time under the Speedy Trial Act.
[ECF Nos. 22; 27; 29].
United States filed a consolidated response opposing both
motions, though it advised that it would not oppose a trial
continuance of 30 to 60 days and a deadline of 14 days from
entry of a Court Order to file pretrial motions (other than
motions in limine) and Holland filed a consolidated reply to
both motions. [ECF Nos. 33; 34].
reasons outlined in more detail below, the Undersigned
respectfully recommends that the Court continue the trial for
at least 90 days beyond the current April 3, 2017 trial date
and provide Holland with 45 days (from the date of this
Report) to file motions.
to Local Rule 88.9(c), his deadline to file motions is March
1, 2017 (28 days from the date of arraignment -- February 1,
2017). [ECF No. 10]. The motion-filing deadline has expired,
but Holland filed a motion seeking additional time on
February 24, 2017, before the deadline expired.
the Undersigned does not control Judge Martinez's
calendar, I cannot pick a new trial date. Instead, all I can
do is recommend that a continuance of some duration (e.g., 90
days) be provided and leave it to Judge Martinez to pinpoint
the new trial date (assuming that Judge Martinez adopts my
Report and Recommendations).
primary argument in favor of a trial continuance and an
extension of the motion-filing deadline is the volume of
materials which the Government recently produced. Not only is
the production voluminous, Holland says, but it was allegedly
produced in a disorganized manner. He argues that he would be
deprived of a fair trial if his counsel were required to
review all the evidence against him in this complex case by
the current trial date.
Government contends that Holland is well-positioned to go to
trial under the current schedule because (1) he has known
about the case for years; (2) he has received 413, 000
documents from Tenet during the four-year investigation; and
(3) the Government provided him with “prompt,
comprehensive, and unprecedented discovery within 14 days of
arraignment.” [ECF No. 33, p. 8]. The Government also
objects to Holland's requests because it says he is
seeking an indeterminate continuance.
to Holland's reply, the United States' four-year
investigation involved 450 witness interviews, the testimony
of approximately 60 grand jury witnesses, the production of 2
million documents totaling more than 7 million pages and more
than 600 boxes of hard copy documents. He argues that the
Government's production cannot be equated to his review
of the 413, 000 documents previously received from Tenet. He
says there are more than 1.3 million new, unreviewed
documents in the Government's productions, amounting to
more than 4 million unreviewed pages.
setting aside the production of actual documents, Holland
points to the recent availability of more than 550 grand jury
transcripts and interview summaries which have been made
available to the defense for in-person inspection in
outlined in Holland's reply, the defense team has already
devoted a significant amount of time to document review but
needs considerably more time. For example, Holland advises
that a team from his e-discovery vendor spent between 90 to
100 hours in a 2-week interval preparing documents for review
by a team of 50 contract attorneys. In addition to the
burdens associated solely from the volume of materials,
Holland contends that the Government's production logs
“are not detailed and do not provide clear, specific
descriptions of what is contained in the litany of different
files listed.” [ECF No. 34, p. 5].
Undersigned need not specify the precise number of boxes of
documents which were recently produced but which were not
earlier available to Holland in order to make a
recommendation here. The documentation is voluminous.
Regardless of whether the case involves 600 boxes, 500 boxes
or a mere 400 boxes of documents, the case is undoubtedly