Opinion
22-cr-20188-03
06-22-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. D3, MIRNA KAMAL FAYAD, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY THIRD MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO TRAVEL (ECF No. 85)
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman Judge
Now before the Court is Defendant Mirna Kamal Fayad's emergency third motion for permission to travel to visit family in Lebanon. (See Mot., ECF No. 85.) This case was recently reassigned to this Court on June 15, 2022. (See Order of Reassignment, ECF No. 84.) The previously-assigned District Judge denied Fayad's two prior motions for permission to travel to Lebanon.
Fayad filed the instant motion on June 20, 2022. Having been assigned to this case for one week and having had no contact with the attorneys or parties, the Court does not yet have enough familiarity with the issues in the case, or with Fayad personally, to determine, on an emergency basis, whether the requested permission to travel is warranted here. Moreover, the Court is not in a position at this time to hold a full adversarial hearing on Fayad's request to travel - including sworn witness testimony as necessary and appropriate - before Fayad's proposed travel date (June 26, 2022). Under these circumstances, the Court is not inclined, on an emergency basis, to depart from the prior Judge's rulings on Fayad's earlier motions.Accordingly, the Court will DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Fayad's motion (ECF No. 85). Because the Court's denial is without prejudice, it does not preclude Fayad from filing future motions, on a non-emergency basis, for permission to travel. If Fayad files such a motion in the future, the Court will have an opportunity, on a non-emergency basis, to hold a full adversarial hearing, with argument and, as necessary and appropriate, documentary evidence, testimony, and crossexamination. This will enable the Court to decide any such motions with a better understanding of the case and on a time frame that allows for full and careful consideration of the issue presented and of both sides' positions.
The Court understands Fayad's position that her current motion presents different circumstances than her two prior motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.