Opinion
No. 2:06-cr-0058-JAM-EFB P
02-12-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent, v. JAGDIP SINGH SEKHON, MANJIT KAUR RAI, Movants.
ORDER AFTER HEARING AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On February 9, 2021, the parties appeared before the court for a hearing on movants' motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 863 & 864. Counsel for both movants and the government appeared via Zoom video application. Attorney Erin Radekin appeared on behalf of movant Sekhon; Attorney Kresta Daly appeared on behalf of movant Rai. Assistant United States Attorneys Katherine Lydon and Victoria Boesch appeared on behalf of the government. As the court stated on the record, genuine disputes of material fact remain. The court previously determined that material factual disputes as to the Napue and Brady claims must be resolved by way of an evidentiary hearing. See ECF No. 671. Although movants have obtained considerable discovery evidence that has been submitted on this motion, credibility issues remain that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. Accordingly, it is recommended that movants' motions for summary judgment be denied.
As stated at the hearing, the parties shall meet and confer as to when and how to proceed with the evidentiary hearing in this case. Both parties shall file status reports by February 16, 2021. Those status reports should include: (1) witness lists; (2) suitable dates for the hearing; (3) estimates of how many days will be necessary for the hearing; and (4) special considerations, if any, that should be accounted for in conducting the hearing on Zoom (or similar application). As discussed at the hearing, the government may also use its status report to brief its argument that the evidentiary hearing should be limited in scope. Movants may respond to those arguments within fourteen days of the filing of the status report. The government may file a reply within seven days of movants' response.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the parties shall file status reports consistent with this order by February 16, 2021.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that movants' motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 863 & 864, be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: February 12, 2021.
/s/_________
EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
See Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 at 269 (1959) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962).