Opinion
2:22-CR-8 JCM (EJY)
02-22-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiffs, v. GJERGI JUNCAJ, Defendants.
ORDER
Presently before the court is defendant Gjergi Luke Juncaj (“defendant”)'s motion to continue response to motion in limine. (ECF No. 74). The government responded. (ECF No. 75). Both the motion and response, as well as the relevant motion in limine, have been filed under seal. (ECF Nos. 66, 74, 75).
Defendant seeks additional time to respond to the government's motion in limine to exclude certain evidence related to a witness's testimony (the “disputed evidence”). (ECF No. 74; see ECF No. 66). Defendant submits he wishes to consult an expert regarding the disputed evidence's effect on the witness. (ECF No. 74; see ECF No. 66). The issue underlying the motion in limine is a question of law: whether the disputed evidence is relevant to an objective determination. (See ECF No. 66). An outside expert opinion is not necessary to any nonfrivolous argument defendant could present in response to the government's motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUGED, and DECREED that defendant's motion to continue response to motion in limine (ECF No. 74) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant shall have up to and including February 23, 2023, to file any response to the motion in limine. ...
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the government shall have seven days from the filing of any response to reply.