United States v. Wells

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ORLANDIS WELLS, M.D., Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, District of Nevada

Date published: Nov 22, 2022

2:19-cr-00216-ART-NJK1 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cr-00216-ART-NJK1

11-22-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ORLANDIS WELLS, M.D., Defendant.

PETER LEVITT, ESQ. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHRISTOPHER R. ORAM, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DR. WELLS

NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES JUDGE

PETER LEVITT, ESQ. ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY ATTORNEY FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CHRISTOPHER R. ORAM, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR DR. WELLS

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE EXPERT WITNESS DISCLOSURE

NANCY J. KOPPE UNITED STATES JUDGE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREEED by ORLANDIS WELLS, M.D., by and through his attorney, CHRISTOPHER R. ORAM, ESQ., and the United States of America, by and through MR. PETER LEVITT, Assistant United States Attorney, that the deadline for expert witness disclosure, scheduled for December 2, 2022 for the Government, and December 23, 2022 for the Dr. Wells, be continued for a date and time convenient to this Honorable Court, after December 16, 2022 for the Government, and January 13, 2023 for Dr. Wells. Trial in this case is set to begin on February 7^th, 2023.

The request for a continuance is based upon the following:

1. The recent amendments to Rule 16 require the parties to make more thorough, detailed disclosures, and require greater consultation with putative experts regarding their (the experts') certifications of their areas of proposed expert testimony. Because the government is currently considering adducing testimony from two separate experts under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the government requires a brief extension of the current expert disclosure deadline to ensure compliance with Rule 16's enhanced requirements. Moreover, because the government's disclosures may, in turn, affect the defendant's decision regarding his own possible presentation of expert testimony under Rule 702, additional time after the government's disclosure will be necessary.

2. This stipulation does not affect the expected trial date as previously assigned to this case.

3. The Government has no objection to the continuance.

4. Dr. Wells does not object to the continuance.

5. The additional time requested herein is not sought for purposes of delay.

6. Additionally, denial of this request for continuance could result in a miscarriage of justice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.