IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Criminal Action No. 4:22-CR-00253-P

§

LAUREN WHITNEY MOORE (01) §

§

 Defendant. §

ORDER

Defendant’s motion for continuance dated November 2, 2022—which the government 

does not oppose—is granted, and the trial of this case is reset to Monday, December 12, 2022 at 

9:00 a.m.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the court can grant an “ends of justice” continuance 

at the request of the Defendant or the Defendant’s attorney if the court finds “that the ends of 

justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a 

speedy trial.” Id. One of the factors the court may consider in granting an “ends of justice” 

continuance is “[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance . . . would deny counsel for the 

defendant . . . the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the 

exercise of due diligence.” § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). 

For the reasons set out in Defendant’s motion, the court finds that (1) the ends of justice 

served by the granting of a trial continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial; (2) the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny

Defendant’s counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence; and (3) taking into account the exercise of due diligence by defense 

Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 19 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 37
- 2 -

counsel, a continuance of the duration granted by this order is necessary for effective preparation 

by defense counsel.

Except as provided in this paragraph, Defendant’s pretrial motions must be filed no later 

than November 21, 2022. Defendant shall not file a (1) motion to compel; (2) motion for 

discovery; (3) motion for disclosure; or (4) motion for production unless (i) Defendant previously 

submitted a written request seeking the desired discovery, disclosure, or production that expressly 

specifies the date and time when Defendant is available to receive and review the discoverable, 

disclosable, or producible information or items in or through the United States Attorney’s Office 

for the Northern District of Texas; and (ii) the government has failed to comply with the request. 

The government must respond in writing to any request made in accordance with this paragraph 

within seven (7) days of receiving the request. The government’s written response must state either 

that the government (1) will provide the desired discovery, disclosure, or production pursuant to 

the Defendant’s request, or (2) will not provide the desired discovery, disclosure, or production, 

citing the legal or policy bases for the government’s decision. See, e.g., FED. R. CRIM. P. 16, 26.2, 

FED. R. EVID. 806, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United 

States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), 18 U.S.C. App. 3, §§ 1-14. Lack of actual possession of an item by 

the government will not be accepted as a reason for non-production if the government can obtain 

possession of the item or, if copiable, a copy of the item upon the government’s request. If the 

government does not comply with such request, the defendant will be permitted to file a (1) motion 

to compel; (2) motion for discovery; (3) motion for disclosure; or (4) motion for production. Any 

such motion must be accompanied by copies of any pertinent requests that were previously served 

by the movant and verification as to service of each such request and the results of the efforts to 

obtain the desired discovery, disclosure, or production pursuant to each such request.

Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 19 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 38
- 3 -

The government must file a written designation of its expert witnesses, if any, no later than 

November 21, 2022. Each defendant must file a written designation of his or her expert witnesses, 

if any, no later than November 28, 2022. Each designation must contain a brief statement of the 

subject matter to be covered by each expert witness. Any motions challenging these designations—

including challenges arising under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 

Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), or Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999)—must be 

filed by the deadline for filing pretrial motion established in this Order. 

Notwithstanding Local Criminal Rule 16.1-1, a set of copies of all copiable exhibits that a 

party intends to offer at trial, except those offered solely for impeachment, must be bound in threering binders and exchanged with all other parties no later than 12:00 noon on the Friday prior to 

trial; and a like set must be delivered to the courtroom at the time of jury selection. See 

http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/judge-mark-pittman.

Each exhibit must be labeled prior to trial by a label containing the identity of the offering 

party, the exhibit number, and the cause number; originals and copies must be clearly designated 

and distinguishable. 

Notwithstanding Local Criminal Rule 16.1-2, the parties must file with the Clerk and 

deliver to all other parties and the court reporter, separate lists of exhibits and witnesses, except 

those offered solely for impeachment, no later than 12:00 noon on the Thursday prior to trial. The 

witness lists to be filed by the parties must list all witnesses—including timely designated expert 

witnesses—the party may call at trial and contain a brief statement of the subject matter to be 

covered by each witness. 

Counsel for the United States of America shall deliver to counsel for defendant by 

December 5, 2022, a copy of its proposed Court’s charge to the jury.

Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 19 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 39
- 4 -

Counsel for defendants shall deliver to counsel for the United States of America by 

December 6, 2022, (i) a statement, prepared with specificity, of any objection his or her client had 

to any part of the proposed charge counsel for United States of America has delivered pursuant to 

this paragraph and (ii) the text of all additional instructions his or her client wishes to have included 

in the court’s charge to the jury. Each objection and each additional instruction shall be 

accompanied by citations to authorities supporting defendant’s objection or request.

By 10:00 a.m. on December 7, 2022, the lead attorneys for the parties to this action shall 

meet face-to-face in the office of the United States Attorney for the purposes of (i) discussing, and 

trying to resolve, differences between the parties as to language to be included in the Court’s 

charge to the jury and (ii) identifying areas of disagreement that cannot be resolved. The meeting 

shall be held for a sufficient length of time for there to be a meaningful discussion of all areas of 

disagreement and a meaningful attempt to accomplish agreement. Each attorney shall cooperate 

fully in all matters related to the meeting.

By 2:00 p.m. on December 7, 2022, counsel for United States of America shall file a 

document titled “Agreed Charge,” which in a single document shall contain, in logical sequence, 

all language to be included in the charge, including jury instructions and jury questions, about 

which the parties do not have disagreement and all language either party wishes to have included 

in the charge about which there is disagreement.

SO ORDERED.

November 2, 2022.

MARK T. PITTMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 19 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 40