The opinion of the court was delivered by: Katherine P. Nelson United States Magistrate Judge
This matter came before the undersigned for a pretrial conference on May 10, 2011. Present at the conference were Christ Coumanis, Esq., counsel for defendant LeRoy Waters; Peter Madden, Esq., counsel for defendant Lori Brill; Neil Hanley, Esq., counsel for defendant Butch Brill; Gordon Armstrong, Esq., counsel for defendant Anthony Eric Moseley; Joe Carl Jordan, Esq., counsel for defendant James Goins; Jackson Sharman, Esq., counsel for defendant Chris Vernon; James Sturdivant, Esq., Ken Nixon, Esq., and Robert Baugh, Esq., counsel for defendant Jeff Vernon, and Assistant United States Attorneys Gregory Bordenkircher, Esq., Charles Baer, Esq., and Christopher Bodnar, Esq. Prior to the conference motions to continue were filed by counsel for defendants Waters (doc. 84), Lori Brill (doc. 103), Butch Brill (doc. 108), Moseley (doc. 121), Chris Vernon (doc. 83) and Jeff Vernon (doc. 80),*fn2 to which the United States filed a reply, voicing no opposition to the continuance but requesting that the matter be continued to the September 2011 criminal term. With the exception of counsel for defendants Chris Vernon and Jeff Vernon*fn3 , counsel for all remaining defendants expressed no opposition to a continuance to the September 2011 criminal term.
Upon consideration of the grounds presented by counsel during the conference, the motions and the Court's record, the undersigned finds that none of the defendants or the United States will be unduly prejudiced by a continuance into the September 2011 term; therefore, the defendants' motions to continue (docs. 84,103,108,121,83, 80) the trial until September 2011 is GRANTED. The trial in this action is CONTINUED into the September 2011 criminal trial term.
The court further finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the ends of justice served by taking such action outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, due to the voluminous discovery (approximately 30,000 pages of spread sheet documents and 70,000 pages in pdf form) as well as the somewhat complex nature of this case, the delay is warranted to enable counsel to adequately prepare for trial and advise their respective clients. *fn4 Under these circumstances, with an agreement of the parties, counsel has proffered valid reasons for an extension of the pretrial preparation period in order to otherwise prepare for trial. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Therefore, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, any delay resulting from this continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) (excluding A[a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge . . . if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.)
The continuance of this matter is contingent on each of the defendants filing a waiver of their Speedy Trial rights, signed by each defendant and his/her counsel, not later than Friday May 20, 2011. The Clerk of the Court is directed to refer this matter to the appropriate Magistrate Judge to set a pretrial conference in August 2011.
Defendants Jeff Vernon and Chris Vernon have also filed motions (docs. 90, 91) to continue the reciprocal discovery deadline and pretrial motions deadline to July 1, 2011 and July 5, 2011, respectively. There were no objections to these motions. Accordingly, the reciprocal discovery deadline for defendants is hereby continued until July 1, 2011, and any pretrial motions are due by July 5, 2011.