United States v. Wasserman

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHILLIP ROY WASSERMAN

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Florida

Date published: Oct 12, 2022

8:20-cr-207-CEH-MRM (M.D. Fla. Oct. 12, 2022)

Opinion

8:20-cr-207-CEH-MRM

10-12-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PHILLIP ROY WASSERMAN

Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

ORDER

Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

This cause comes before the Court upon the following motions, all of which were filed by Defendant Phillip Wasserman:

Motion in Limini [sic] Regarding Alleged Commingling of Funds (Doc. 472);

Motion in Limine to Allow Evidence of Defendant's Legal Career Into Evidence Including Evidence of All Government Actions Against Defendant While He Was an Attorney and All Related Instances to Show that This Case is Politically Motivated (Doc. 473);

Motion in Limine to Prevent the Government From Asking Defendant About His Conversations With His Counsel While Defendant is on the Witness Stand (Doc. 474);

Motion to Review All Grand Jury Transcripts (Doc. 475);

Motion for Grand Jury Transcripts Based Upon the Illegality of Telling the Grand Jury Defendant Had an Obligation to Tell the Note Holders About Personal Tax Liens and Personal Financial Situations (Doc. 478);

Motion in Limine to Not Refer to the Investor Note Holders as Victims (Doc. 488); and

Motion to Allow Civil Suit Against Stephen Howland and the U.S. Government into Evidence (Doc. 507).

At the outset, the Court notes that the pretrial-motions deadline has passed.

Doc. 299 at 1-2; Doc. 347; Doc. 354 at 2. Additionally, not one of these motions contains a legal memorandum. See Local R. M.D. Fla. 3.01(a) (“A motion must include-in a single document no longer than twenty-five pages inclusive of all parts- a concise statement of the precise relief requested, a statement of the basis for the request, and a legal memorandum supporting the request.”). As such, the Court will deny the motions, without prejudice. Because the Court will deny the motions, without prejudice, the Court will also deny as moot the Government's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant's Motions Docketed at 472, 473, 474, 487, and 488 (Doc. 494).¹

1 Also, the Government has responded to Doc. 487 (Doc. 510).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Defendant Wasserman's Motion in Limini [sic] Regarding Alleged Commingling of Funds (Doc. 472) is DENIED, without prejudice.

2. Defendant Wasserman's Motion in Limine to Allow Evidence of Defendant's Legal Career Into Evidence Including Evidence of All Government Actions against Defendant While He Was an Attorney and All Related Instances to Show that This Case is Politically Motivated (Doc. 473) is DENIED, without prejudice.

3. Defendant Wasserman's Motion in Limine to Prevent the Government From Asking Defendant About His Conversations With His Counsel While Defendant is on the Witness Stand (Doc. 474) is DENIED, without prejudice.

4. Defendant Wasserman's Motion to Review All Grand Jury Transcripts (Doc. 475) is DENIED, without prejudice.

5. Defendant Wasserman's Motion for Grand Jury Transcripts Based Upon the Illegality of Telling the Grand Jury Defendant Had an Obligation to Tell the Note Holders About Personal Tax Liens and Personal Financial Situations (Doc. 478) is DENIED, without prejudice.

6. Defendant Wasserman's Motion in Limine to Not Refer to the Investor Note Holders as Victims (Doc. 488) is DENIED, without prejudice.

7. Defendant Wasserman's Motion to Allow Civil Suit Against Stephen Howland and the U.S. Government into Evidence (Doc. 507) is DENIED, without prejudice.

8. The Government's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant's Motions Docketed at 472, 473, 474, 487, and 488 (Doc. 494) is DENIED, as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on October 12, 2022.