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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Before the Court is “Defendant Michael Lacey’s Unopposed Motion for Relief 

from Trial Schedule Conflict” (Doc. 1629), filed on July 6, 2023. Trial in this matter is 

set to commence on August 8, 2023, and continue through November 3, 2023, with some 

noted recesses in between those dates. (Doc. 1546). In the Motion for Relief, Mr. 

Cambria, one of three attorneys of record for Defendant Michael Lacey, informs the 

Court that his daughter is getting married in New York on September 9, 2023, and asks 

that the Court vacate the trial days currently set for September 6–9. Mr. Cambria 

represents there is no one that can assume his responsibilities during these two and a half 

days of trial. (Doc. 1629 at 2). Without specifying, Mr. Cambria says that his partner 

and co-counsel of record Erin McCampbell Paris “is not a trial attorney” and local cocounsel of record Janey Henze Cook is “conflicted from being trial counsel.” (Id.) 

The Court will deny the eleventh-hour request to vacate trial on September 6–9. 

The trial dates in this matter were set in this case after the Court consulted with counsel 

on availability and potential conflicts. In its March 23, 2023, Order setting trial, the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1631 Filed 07/07/23 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

parties were instructed to file a notice of any bona fide conflict with the trial dates within 

seven (7) days of the Order. (Doc. 1546). Mr. Cambria’s Motion for Relief is over three 

months past this deadline, and he offers no excuse as to why the Court was not informed 

of his conflict sooner. In the interim, potential jurors have been informed of the trial 

dates and are currently responding to questionnaires that in part relate to their own 

possible conflicts with the dates of trial. 

The Court is also not persuaded that Ms. Paris is unable to assume trial 

responsibilities for two and a half days while Mr. Cambria attends his daughter’s 

wedding festivities. Ms. Paris’s firm profile states that complex trial litigation is a focus 

of her practice and that during her seventeen-year legal career she has represented clients 

in civil and criminal matters in federal and state courts. The Court is confident that Ms. 

Paris is more than qualified to first-chair two and a half days of trial in the event that Mr. 

Cambria cannot attend.1

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that “Defendant Michael Lacey’s Unopposed Motion for Relief 

from Trial Schedule Conflict” (Doc. 1629) is denied. 

Dated this 6th day of July, 2023.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

1 Mr. Cambria cites to an October 3, 2018, Order granting the Government leave to 

appear telephonically for a motion hearing as evidence of Ms. Cook’s conflict. The filing 

does not support the assertion that Ms. Cook is conflicted from serving as trial counsel. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1631 Filed 07/07/23 Page 2 of 2