Apparently, John Durham's office practices in front of federal judges who are not like any of the federal judges you and I may have practiced in front of. Faced with a Motion to Strike allegations from his main pleading, Mr. Durham's Office did not respond.
Instead, they filed a Response all right, but they said they would respond in the future, just not right now: "Indeed, the Government intends to file motions in limine in which it will further discuss these and other pertinent facts to explain why they constitute relevant and admissible evidence at trial." USA v. Sussman, Government's Response to the Defendant's Cross-Motion to Strike, Doc. 40 at p. 2, filed Feb. 17, 2022 (D.C.D.C. Criminal Case No. 21-582 (CRC)). Download USA v. Sussman USA's Response to Defendant's Cross-Motion to Strike Doc. 40 filed Feb. 17 2022 (D.C.D.C. Criminal Case No. 21-582 (CRC)).
It never occurred to me to tell a federal judge that she or he just has to wait for my Response, that's all there is to it. Did it ever occur to you that you could get away with that?
It occurred to Mr. John Durham. Or at least to someone in his office. The pleading was signed by one Brittain Shaw, a relatively new player on the pleadings docket on PACER in this case.
Stay tuned. More to come....
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.
Comments