Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cr-00580/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cr-00580-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Casorso
Defendant
Michael Marr
Defendant
Victor Marr
Defendant
Javier Sanchez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL MARR, JAVIER SANCHEZ, 

GREGORY CASORSO, and VICTOR 

MARR,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cr-00580-PJH 

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1

This matter came on for hearing on defendants’ pretrial motions on June 1, 2016. 

For the reasons set forth on the record and summarized below, the court ORDERS as 

follows:

1. Defendants’ motion to strike the term “bid rigging” from the indictment as 

surplusage is DENIED. Doc. no. 71. The term is both relevant and material to the 

charges in that it describes the alleged conduct underlying the Sherman Act counts, and 

is neither unduly prejudicial nor inflammatory.

2. Defendants’ motion to suppress evidence of mail fraud or bank fraud seized 

during the execution of search warrants is DENIED. Doc. no. 69. The facts set forth in 

the search warrant affidavit, which included details about Use of the United States Mail 

and Interstate Carriers, such as records of mailings, and evidence of use of checks, are 

sufficient to support probable cause to believe that evidence of mail fraud and bank fraud 

would be found at the searched premises. Probable cause does not require specific 

evidence of each element of an offense. U.S. v. Thornton, 710 F.2d 513, 515 (9th Cir. 

1983) (citation omitted).

Case 4:14-cr-00580-PJH Document 125 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. Defendants’ motion for early disclosure of the government’s witness and 

exhibit lists is GRANTED. Doc. no. 70. The government shall disclose its trial exhibit list 

and witness list by August 1, 2016. The court has previously ordered, by order entered 

January 22, 2016, that the parties shall file motions in limine, pretrial statements, 

proposed jury instructions, and a proposed form of verdict by August 3, 2016. 

Responses to the motions in limine must be filed by August 17, 2016.

4. The parties are ordered to file supplemental briefs on defendants’ motion to 

suppress warrantless audio recordings by June 10, 2016. Doc. no. 68. Defendants 

conceded at the hearing that they do not seek suppression of the video portion of the 

warrantless recordings. Defendants shall specify their requests for information about 

how the recordings of their communications were used by the government and/or law 

enforcement. The government shall identify all the uses of the recordings of 

communications in which defendants have been identified. The parties shall provide an 

audio copy of the recordings at issue. After reviewing the supplemental filings, the court 

will determine whether to set a further hearing on the motion to suppress.

5. Defendants’ motions for a bill of particulars (doc. no. 65), to dismiss the mail 

fraud counts (doc. no. 67), and to adjudicate the Sherman Act allegations pursuant to the 

rule of reason (doc. no. 66) are taken under submission. The court will issue a ruling 

after hearing argument on the motions filed in United States v. Florida, et al., CR 14-582 

PJH.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2016

__________________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cr-00580-PJH Document 125 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2