DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice)

Erin E. McCampbell (NY Bar No. 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

pcambria@lglaw.com

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (CA Bar No.135311, admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA Bar No. 304917, admitted pro hac vice)

BIENERT | KATZMAN PC

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, California 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949)369-3701

tbienert@bienertkatzman.com

wbernstein@bienartkatzman.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

Additional counsel listed on next page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

CONTINUE TRIAL

(Oral argument requested)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 1 of 13
ii

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

Gary S. Lincenberg (CA Bar No. 123058, admitted pro hac vice)

Ariel A. Neuman (CA Bar No. 241594, admitted pro hac vice)

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (CA Bar No. 279856, admitted pro hac vice)

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW PC

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for John Brunst

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832)

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

Attorney for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181)

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

joy.bertrand@gmail.com

Attorney for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 2 of 13
1

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

MOTION

Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst, Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, and Joye 

Vaught (“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, move for an order continuing 

the trial date from April 12, 2021, to September 20, 2021, because of the ongoing coronavirus 

pandemic and because the Ninth Circuit has recently taken action related to Defendants’ petition for 

a writ of mandamus regarding their Motion to Recuse. Specifically, just last week the Ninth Circuit 

scheduled oral argument on the mandamus petition for March 3, 2021, just one month before the 

trial in this case is scheduled to commence. Given the basis of that motion, this Court should await 

that ruling before making further substantive rulings in the case (including the outstanding motion to 

dismiss and various motions in limine), and the parties should be allowed sufficient time after the 

Ninth Circuit rules to address further proceedings, whether they be before this judge or a different 

judge. Continuing the trial to September should accommodate these concerns, and should ensure the 

safety of all participants as it relates to the ongoing pandemic. The Motion is based on the following 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Court’s file, all of the submissions associated with 

Defendants’ May 29, 2020, Motion to Continue (see Docs. 990, 992-95, 1025), incorporated herein 

by reference, and any evidence or argument presented at the hearing on this Motion. Excludable delay 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) may occur as a result of this Motion or of an order based on this Motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Background 

On June 29, 2020, this Court continued the trial of this matter from August 17, 2020, to 

January 12, 2021, because the Court felt it could not “ensure the health and safety of all trial 

participants” because of the pandemic. (See Doc. 1031 at 1.). In its Order, the Court noted “there 

will always likely be 40 people in the Courtroom,” “there is not enough space to ensure that everyone 

is physically distanced,” and “many witnesses, attorneys and parties must travel to Arizona for trial 

and travel is still fraught with risk.” (Id.) The Court also expressed concern “about maintaining the 

health and safety of the jurors give[n] the space issues and the length of the trial, 12 weeks.” (Id.)

Defendant Larkin subsequently moved to continue the trial until April 13, 2021, due to the ongoing 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 3 of 13
2

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

pandemic and a medical leave for one of the defense counsel. (Doc. 1058.) The Court granted that 

motion. (Doc. 1068.)

Although the number of COVID-19 cases declined over the summer, the fall and winter have 

brought an explosive resurgence of COVID-19. When the Court continued the trial on June 29, 

2020, the national seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases was 40,008 cases per day.1 On January 

13, 2021, the national seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases was 246,354 cases per day—more 

than six times the number of cases on June 29, 2020.2 Coronavirus-related fatalities and 

hospitalizations in the United States now are at record highs.3

In Arizona, on June 29, 2020, the seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases was 2,834 cases 

per day; on January 13, 2021, the number was 9,294 cases per day—more than three times the number 

of cases on June 29.4 Arizona now has the highest rate in the Nation for seven-day COVID-19 

positivity.5

 The number of individuals hospitalized in Arizona is nearly double what it was during the 

worst days of the summer surge.6 These conditions are expected to get worse.7

 Recognizing that 

Arizona has one of the “highest per capital COVID infection rates in the world,” Chief Judge G. 

Murray Snow just prohibited all civil and criminal jury trials for the months of January and February. 

 1 See New York Times, Coronavirus in the U.S.: Latest Map and Case Count, 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-uscases.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage (last visited January 14, 

2021).

2 Id. 3 See Maria Caspani, Peter Szekely, Reuters, United States Tops 21 Million COVID-19 Cases With 

Record Hospitalizations as States Ramp Up, Reuters (Jan. 6, 2021) available at: 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa/u-s-tops-21-million-covid-19-caseswith-record-hospitalizations-as-states-ramp-up-vaccinations-idUSKBN29B23B (last visited Jan. 12, 

2021).

4 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/arizona-coronavirus-cases.html (last visited

January 14, 2021).

5 See Alison Steinbach, USA Today, Arizona Again Ranks No. 1 for Weekly COVID-19 Case Rate 

as State Reports Nearly 9k New Cases, Rising Hospitalizations (Jan. 11, 2020), available at: 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/local/Arizona-health/2021/01/11/Arizona-coronavirusjan-11-update-8-995-new-cases-6-new-known-deaths/6621642002/ (last visited Jan. 12, 2021).

6 See id.

7 See id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 4 of 13
3

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

(See General Order 21-02.) He warned that trials may be further postponed depending on the public 

health situation. (See id.)

In short, the same reasons that justified the previous continuances of the trial still exist, but 

are even more compelling today. 

Argument 

As set forth in more detail in Defendant’s first motion to continue the trial on account of the 

pandemic (Doc. 990), which Defendants incorporate by reference, the pandemic implicates the 

Court’s obligation to provide a fair trial and protect the health of trial participants. Among other 

things, a trial during the pandemic would: 

• impair Defendants’ right to effective assistance of counsel;

• deprive the Defendants of trial before a fair cross-section of the community;

• compromise the Defendants’ right to meaningful confrontation;

• compromise the Defendants’ right to compulsory process, to present evidence, and to 

testify;

• compromise the Defendants’ right to be present and to be judged without the effect of a 

prejudicial face covering;

• compromise the Defendants’ right to be tried by an impartial jury and to be free of coercive 

verdicts;

• compromise the Defendants’ right to be free of coercive pressure to plead guilty; and 

• violate the Defendants’ due process right to the exercise of reasonable care toward the 

health and safety of persons confined by government action.

I. The COVID-19 Pandemic is Worse Now Than in June and August 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not improved since last May when Defendants moved for a 

continuance, nor last June when the Court granted the continuance, nor last August when the trial 

was scheduled, but instead has worsened significantly. Not only is the incidence of COVID-19 up 

dramatically, but:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 5 of 13
4

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

• Hospital Utilization/COVID-19 Deaths. The health care system is straining to cope 

with the surge of cases and in certain places is “approaching a breaking point.”8

 On 

October 13, there were 36,000 people with COVID-19 in U.S. hospitals on January 13, 

there were 130,000.9 This week states reported 23,259 COVID-19 deaths, 25 percent more 

than in any other week since the pandemic began.10 The State of California, where counsel 

for two defendants and one government counsel reside and practice, has imposed a 

regional stay home order and banned all travel in excess of 120 miles from home because 

the ICUs are operating in surge mode in many regions in the state.11 Tragically, some 

hospitals have formed teams to assess and ration care, something previously thought of as 

unthinkable in the United States.12 Arizona hospitals are preparing for the possibility of 

rationing hospital care too, as the number of patients hospitalized in Arizona for known 

or suspected COVID-19 cases was at 4,866 on January 15, 2021, far above last summer’s 

peak of 3,517 on July 13.13

• More Contagious Coronavirus Variants. A new, significantly more contagious variant 

of the coronavirus has been identified in five States, one of them being Arizona.14 The 

impact of this new variant on public health is unclear, but prior public health measures, 

such as social distancing of at least six feet and mask wearing, may not provide protection 

 8 Id. 9 See The Worst Week for Deaths Since the Pandemic Began, The Atlantic (Jan. 14, 2021), available at 

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/01/covid-19-deaths-are-25-percent-higher-anyother-week/617686/ (last visited Jan. 15, 2021).

10 Id. 11 See, e.g., Jonathan Vigliotti, CBS News, Coronavirus Surge in Southern California Leaves Hospitals 

On Verge of Rationing Care (Jan. 8, 2021), available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covidcalifornia-hospitals-surge-rationing-care/ (last visited January 13, 2021).

12 See id. 13 See Alison Steinbach, Arizona passes 11K known COVID-19 deaths as state remains national hot spot 

for case and death rates, The Arizona Republic (Jan. 15, 2021), available at 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-health/2021/01/15/arizona-coronavirusjan-15-update-9-146-new-cases-185-new-known-deaths/4173742001/ (last visited Jan. 15, 2021).

14 See Ryan W. Miller, USA Today, How Will You Be Told When It’s Your Turn for a COVID-19 

Vaccine? It’s Complicated (Jan. 6, 2021), available at: 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/12/24/covid-vaccine-eligibility-how-whenamericans-notified/4008128001/ (last visited Jan. 12, 2021).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 6 of 13
5

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

from the new variants. As a result, the likelihood for COVID-19 to spread among trial 

participants or witnesses travelling to the trial is much greater than last August. 

• Slow Vaccine Rollout. Although the United States has authorized two vaccines for

distribution and has begun vaccination of healthcare workers and, in some places, those 

over age 75 or 65, it unrealistic to assume that all or even many of the trial participants will 

be vaccinated by April. Indeed, it is anticipated that there will not be enough vaccine 

supplies to make the vaccines readily available to all Americans until the summer.15 

II. This Lengthy Multi-Defendant Case Cannot Be Properly Prepared or Safely Tried as

the Pandemic Rages.

First, the defense cannot effectively prepare the more significant witnesses for their testimony

remotely, which means counsel’s trial preparation efforts will be ineffective. Although 

videoconferencing is suitable for some tasks, it is not suitable for preparing significant witnesses. In 

seeking a pandemic-related continuance in another complex, four-defendant criminal case, the 

government recently justified its request for a continuance by telling the Court (in a joint filing with 

the defense): 

[V]ideoconferencing may be adequate to prepare certain out-of-state 

witnesses whose testimony is limited in scope, and/or does not involve 

numerous exhibits. The government estimates that there are at least half 

a dozen witnesses it could prepare in this manner. In this case, however, 

many witnesses—all of whom reside out of state—are expected to testify 

at length on direct and cross-examination. Their testimony will involve 

hundreds of exhibits, including documents and audio recordings. The 

parties respectfully submit that videoconferencing is not an adequate 

substitute for in-person preparation of such witnesses. It cannot, for 

instance, replace the nonverbal cues between lawyers and clients (or 

lawyers and co-counsel), which can be just as important as the words 

spoken, but are missed when communicating via video. It likewise 

hampers lawyers’ ability to pick up on nonverbal cues from witnesses. 

It imposes heightened burdens on witnesses—including third-party 

civilian witnesses—by increasing the amount of time needed to prepare 

due to unavoidable communication lags and other technological issues, 

as well as the fact that presenting exhibits to a witness remotely, or 

 15 See Ryan W. Miller, USA Today, How Will You Be Told When It’s Your Turn for a COVID-19 

Vaccine? It’s Complicated (Jan. 6, 2021), available at: 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/12/24/covid-vaccine-eligibility-how-whenamericans-notified/4008128001/ (last visited Jan. 12, 2021).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 7 of 13
6

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

playing audio remotely, can be cumbersome. Thus, while 

videoconferencing has allowed some cases in this district to proceed, it 

is substantially more difficult in a case involving as many witnesses, 

exhibits, defendants and attorneys as this one. And no case has, to date, 

required preparing the majority of trial witnesses via videoconference, as 

this one would.

(See United States v. Colburn, 19-CR-10080-NMG (D. Mass.), Joint Response to Court Notice at 2, a 

true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. A.) Here, with one exception, the defense 

counsel all reside and practice at great distance from their clients as well as from nearly all the potential 

witnesses.

Second, this will not be an ordinary trial. This case has six defendants and the government 

projects the trial of its 100-count indictment will last twelve weeks (inclusive of its case-in-chief, 

defense case, and rebuttal case), with 98 named government witnesses, plus numerous defense 

witnesses, many of whom must travel from out of State. The trial likely will involve no fewer than 

50 daily trial participants (six Defendants, defense counsel and staff, government counsel and staff, 

judiciary staff, jurors, and alternates), plus members of the press, Defendants’ family members, and 

the public. If any trial participant, witness, or spectator experienced any symptoms of the coronavirus 

(with mild symptoms mirroring symptoms associated with the common cold or seasonal allergies 

such as a runny nose), or contracted the virus, the trial would have been halted until all trial 

participants quarantined and tested negative for the virus. (See Doc. 990 at 4-7.) With the community 

spread of the coronavirus rampant across the country, and in Arizona, the odds that this case could 

be tried without at least one quarantine, and likely multiple quarantines, are slim, particularly with 

witnesses and counsel having to fly to and from Phoenix and dozens of out-of-town trial participants 

risking exposure from things like going to a restaurant for dinner. Repeated breaks for quarantining 

and testing almost assuredly would derail a trial of this complexity and duration. Moreover, in the 

event that one of the trial participants tests positive for the virus, the contact tracing that would be 

required would be monumental, and could become a multi-state endeavor, something that Arizona’s 

already stressed public health system should not be forced to bear in the name of expediency. 

Third, certain Defendants and defense counsel are at high-risk of serious complications or 

death, by virtue of their age, medical conditions, or both (see Docs. 992-95), if they contract this virus 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 8 of 13
7

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

and should not be placed in harm’s way when we are months away from being able to proceed to trial 

safely. The illness associated with this virus can be devastating even to those who are in excellent 

health, as it is well-documented that it has killed otherwise healthy young people or has left them with 

serious, long-term health complications. No one—witness, juror, counsel, Defendant, or Court 

staff—should have to put their life in jeopardy to appear at an April trial when a brief adjournment 

will enable the trial to proceed safely. The defense also faces the very real risk that witnesses will 

refuse to travel to Arizona and testify in a crowded courtroom as the pandemic rages. Moreover, 

defense counsel are not aware of any courtroom that would allow the trial participants to participate 

in a socially distant manner that also provides for their meaningful participation. 

III. Federal Courts Across the Country are Suspending Jury Trials Because of the 

Pandemic.

The vast majority of federal courts have suspended all jury trials, including in uncomplicated 

single-defendant cases.16 Unsurprisingly, courts also are routinely postponing lengthy multidefendant cases.

For example, in one of the Varsity Blues cases in the District of Massachusetts, the defense 

recently moved to postpone the trial from February 2021 to September 2021. That case will be “a 

four-defendant criminal trial” “that is likely to last four or five weeks—and perhaps longer, depending 

on the length of any defense cases and whether any of the defendants choose to testify—in a closed 

courtroom.” (Ex. A at 3.) (In other words, that case has fewer defendants than here and the trial likely 

will be much shorter than here.) The case will be tried in Boston, where COVID-19 is not as rampant 

as in Arizona. When the court questioned that need for the continuance, the government said it 

wished to “try this case as soon as is reasonably practical and safely possible” and “the earliest, most 

realistic such date is September 2021.” (Ex. A at 6.) The court subsequently granted the continuance

and rescheduled the trial for September 13, 2021. (See United States v. Colburn, 19-CR-10080-NMG 

(D. Mass.), Order at 2, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. B.)

 16 See U.S. Court Closings, Restrictions, and Reopenings Due to COVID-19, Paul Hastings 

(last updated Jan. 12, 2021) https://www.paulhastings.com/about-us/advice-for-businesses-indealing-with-the-expanding-coronavirus-events/u.s.-court-closings-cancellations-and-restrictionsdue-to-covid-19 (last visited January 12, 2021).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 9 of 13
8

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

Similarly, in a complex criminal case in the Northern District of California (also a location 

with less COVID-19 than in Arizona), a trial that was anticipated to last for several months on an 

indictment that was issued in 2018 was continued from March 9, 2021, to July 13, 2021, to ensure 

that the trial commences at a time when the “community is safe” due to vaccination of the general 

public. (See United States v. Elizabeth Holmes, 18-CR-258-EJD (N.D.C.A. Dec. 18, 2020) (Doc. 650) at 

2, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Ex. C.) In continuing the trial, the court 

recognized that “a continuance of the trial will cause great inconvenience to the victims,” as well as 

the Defendant “who wishes a speedy opportunity to defend against the charges.” (Id.) The court 

described those rights as “important,” but nonetheless continued the trial because “paramount to the 

court is the safety and health of the community.”17 (Id.) 

IV. The Significant Logistical Challenges to Prepare This Case for Trial Require a Prompt 

Decision.

We currently are three months out from the scheduled trial date, but the Court should not 

hold off on ruling on this Motion until closer to the trial. Although the incidence of COVID-19 

might drop from its current peaks, there is no reason to believe the incidence will drop to a level 

where this case can be properly prepared and safely tried before a significant part of the general 

population is vaccinated—and that will not happen before this summer.

The defense (and the government) need a decision on this Motion as soon as possible. They 

need to block off more than twelve weeks from their calendars and need as much notice as possible 

to accomplish that scheduling feat. If the trial is not postponed, the defense team needs to make 

housing arrangements in Phoenix and arrange for witness to travel to Phoenix. These logistical issues 

must be addressed with as much notice as possible, but also knowing that the trial will indeed proceed 

as planned. By the time the parties are six weeks away from the trial date, these arrangements must 

be completed to enable counsel to focus on the important work of preparing for the trial, rather than 

 17 Last week, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Sydney R. Thomas, also cancelled the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference, scheduled for mid-July 2021, noting that the “national surge in 

COVID-19 cases and issues regarding accessibility of vaccines” made it “safer and more prudent” 

to cancel the conference. (See Email from Sydney R. Thomas, Jan. 7, 2021, a true and exact copy of 

which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 10 of 13
9

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

scrambling to address logistical issues at the last minute. For these reasons, Defendants have filed 

the Motion now, rather than a month from now, as all participants need a ruling on this Motion as 

soon as possible. Further, based on the information available at this time concerning the widespread 

availability of the vaccine by the end of summer, a September start date is realistic. 

V. A Continuance Will Enable the Parties to Obtain a Ruling From the Ninth Circuit.

As the parties discussed at the most recent status conference, the Ninth Circuit ordered 

briefing on the Defendants’ petition for a writ of mandamus in which Defendants seek an order 

overturning this Court’s denial of the Defendants’ Motion to Recuse. Since then, on January 15, 

2021, the Ninth Circuit announced that it would hear oral argument on March 3, 2021. This material 

development, alone, merits granting the brief continuance requested in this Motion. Based on the 

Ninth Circuit’s expeditious handling of the petition, a decision from the Ninth Circuit can be expected 

within a reasonable period of time after the argument. Granting this Motion will ensure that the trial 

participants have the time to obtain the Ninth Circuit’s order, and obtain rulings from the presiding 

judge in this case on the outstanding motions (including motions in limine, a discovery motion, and 

a motion to dismiss), in sufficient time to finalize their trial preparation before the start of the trial. 

Indeed, starting the trial in April not only creates health and safety issues for the trial participants and 

the Phoenix community, but it also could result in the logistical nightmare of this Court being ordered 

to recuse on the eve of, or during, the trial. 

CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, Defendants request that the Court continue the April 12, 2021, trial date

to September 20, 2021. The continuance should allow many of the trial participants to be vaccinated 

prior to the start of the lengthy trial, as well as providing time for a large part of the general population 

to be vaccinated. The continuance will dramatically reduce the potential for a COVID-19 outbreak 

among the trial participants and provide reasonable certainty that, once the trial begins, the trial will 

be able to proceed to a verdict, if needed.18 

 18 Public health officials are reasonably certain that life will return to normal in the third or fourth 

quarters of 2021, after the vaccine has been made available to the general population. See Elisabeth 

Rosenthal, When Will We Throw Our Masks Away? I asked Dr. Fauci, New York Times (Nov. 19. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 11 of 13
10

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

If the trial does not conclude before the end of October, the defense anticipates the need for 

a brief recess from November 2-10, 2021, to accommodate one counsel’s wedding ceremony.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 19th day of January, 2021, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Erin E. McCampbell

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Jan. 2020) § II (C) 

(3), Erin E. McCampbell hereby attests that all other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, 

concur in the filing’s content and have authorized its filing.

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

BIENERT KATZMAN, PLC

By: /s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Attorneys for James Larkin

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

By: /s/ Ariel A. Neuman

Ariel A. Neuman

Attorneys for John Brunst

 

2020), available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/opinion/sunday/anthony-fauci-covidinterview.html (last visited Jan. 14, 2021).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 12 of 13
11

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

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

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

Bruce Feder

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce Feder

Bruce Feder

Attorneys for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

Joy Bertrand

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ.

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

On January 19, 2021, a PDF version

of this document was filed with

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

Following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Reginald Jones, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1113 Filed 01/19/21 Page 13 of 13