Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 20 I188SCHC 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 4 v. 5 JOSHUA ADAM SCHULTE, 6 7 17 Cr. 548 (PAC) Defendant. ------------------------------x 8 January 8, 2018 3:30 p.m. 9 Before: 10 HON. PAUL A. CROTTY, 11 District Judge 12 APPEARANCES 13 14 15 16 17 18 GEOFFREY S. BERMAN Interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York MATTHEW J. LAROCHE SIDHARDHA KAMARAJU Assistant United States Attorneys BRAFMAN & ASSOCIATES Attorneys for Defendant JACOB KAPLAN 19 20 21 Also present: EVAN SCHLESSINGER, FBI DAVID DONALDSON, FBI JOHN MOSCATO, Pretrial Services 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 1 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 2 of 20 I188SCHC 1 (Case called) 2 THE DEPUTY CLERK: 3 4 2 Counsel for the government, please state your appearance. MR. LAROCHE: Good afternoon, your Honor. Matt 5 Laroche and Sid Kamaraju for the government. 6 counsel table is David Donaldson and Evan Schlessinger from the 7 FBI, and also John Moscato from pretrial services. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. KAPLAN: 10 With us at Thank you for coming. Good afternoon, your Honor. Jacob Kaplan for Mr. Schulte. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Kaplan. 12 Mr. Schulte, how are you? 13 I understand, Mr. Kaplan, you have an application. 14 MR. KAPLAN: 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. KAPLAN: Yes, your Honor. Go ahead. Judge, on the last court date, when we 17 left, the idea was that we had consented to detention with the 18 understanding that Mr. Schulte would be sent down to Virginia 19 to face charges based on a Virginia warrant. 20 happened. 21 didn't do anything in this case. 22 issues, I think it's important that this Court hear the full 23 story of how we actually get here. 24 25 Virginia never came to get him. None of that Virginia just But before I address the bail At one of the previous court appearances, I believe it was the November 8th date, this Court asked why the defense SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 3 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 3 of 20 I188SCHC 1 attorney in this case would need security clearance. 2 answer that was given by one of the prosecutors, I believe, was 3 that there was some top secret government information that was 4 found in Mr. Schulte's apartment, and that out of an abundance 5 of caution it would be prudent that the defense attorney get 6 clearance. 7 And the But I don't think that's entirely accurate. While the current indictment charges Mr. Schulte with 8 child pornography, this case comes out of a much broader 9 perspective. In March of 2017, there was the WikiLeaks leak, 10 where 8,000 CIA documents were leaked on the Internet. 11 believed that Mr. Schulte was involved in that leak. 12 of their investigation, they obtained numerous search warrants 13 for Mr. Schulte's phone, for his computers, and other items, in 14 order to establish the connection between Mr. Schulte and the 15 WikiLeaks leak. 16 The FBI As part As we will discuss later in motion practice, we 17 believe that many of the facts relied on to get the search 18 warrants were just flat inaccurate and not true, and part of 19 our belief is because later on, in the third or fourth search 20 warrant applications, they said some of the facts that we 21 mentioned earlier were not accurate. 22 in a Franks motion going forward, but what I think is important 23 for the Court is, in April or May of 2017, the government had 24 full access to his computers and his phone, and they found the 25 child pornography in this case, but what they didn't find was So we will address this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 4 of 20 I188SCHC 1 4 any connection to the WikiLeaks investigation. 2 Since that point, from May going forward, although 3 they later argued he was a danger to the community, they let 4 him out; they let him travel. 5 That changed when they arrested him in August on the child 6 pornography case. 7 There was no concern at all. At the initial bail conference, they argued as one of 8 the reasons to detain Mr. Schulte was that there were images on 9 his phone that showed a sexual assault. 10 determine that it was -- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 They were able to THE COURT: This is the application before Judge Pitman. MR. KAPLAN: Yes. In front of this Court as well on the second bail hearing as well. THE COURT: I don't recall that. I do recall seeing it in the transcript from Judge Pitman. MR. KAPLAN: That is correct. As part of that case, 18 Judge Pitman rejected that as a basis for detention, finding 19 that since the government conceded that the victim could not 20 identify Mr. Schulte, there was no basis for detention based on 21 that factor alone. 22 Not being deterred by that, it's my understanding that 23 the FBI then sent the photos that were the subject of that 24 issue to Virginia, and in November of 2015, Virginia itself 25 issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Schulte based on those facts. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 5 of 20 I188SCHC 1 But nothing ever happened with that arrest warrant. 2 15 they get the warrant, nothing happened. 5 November 3 That all changes in early December of 2017. On 4 December 5, I had a phone call with John Moscato from pretrial 5 services to discuss whether pretrial services would consent to 6 Mr. Schulte's supervision being transferred from the Southern 7 District of New York to Lubboch, Texas, where he can live with 8 his parents. 9 to that at all. Pretrial services tells me they have no objection 10 I then had a conversation with the prosecutors who 11 told me they would object, but we could address it with the 12 court. 13 with that warrant. 14 to Lubboch, Texas, now suddenly Virginia decide that they want 15 to arrest Mr. Schulte based on this warrant. 16 when the NYPD officers came to arrest Mr. Schulte at 6 a.m. on 17 a Thursday, they told him that we came because the FBI told us 18 to come arrest you; not Virginia authorities, but the FBI came 19 and told us to arrest you. 20 Two days later is when Virginia decides to do something Two days after we try to move Mr. Schulte And, in fact, What I think is important is the Virginia case is just 21 a means to keep Mr. Schulte detained. There is no new 22 information. 23 with defense counsel down in Virginia and she told her, 24 candidly, that there is no new information; it's the same 25 pictures that the FBI had, that the FBI just gave to Virginia The state prosecutor down in Virginia has spoken SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 6 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 6 of 20 I188SCHC 1 and asked them to make an arrest. 2 Mr. Schulte. 3 be -- She still cannot identify Nothing has changed on that basis that would 4 THE COURT: By she can't identify, you mean? 5 MR. KAPLAN: She being the victim. And Mr. Laroche 6 candidly told that to Judge Pitman when he asked, that she 7 could not identify him as being the one who assaulted her. 8 What is kind of interesting is, while the government 9 in their detention letter had two bases, one was the Virginia 10 case, Virginia itself seems not to care. 11 him detained on a state warrant, he was incarcerated, and they 12 were gunning to get him. 13 20 to pick him up. 14 and now he is no longer out, suddenly they are hands off. 15 didn't come to pick him up. 16 get him from federal custody. 17 they simply have a detainer that, if this court lets him out on 18 bail, they are going to come pick him up. 19 is a danger to the community, that there is new information in 20 Virginia which ties him to this crime, is just not true. 21 Virginia is just sitting back and waiting to see what happens. 22 They have no interest in Mr. Schulte, and if they did, Mr. 23 Schulte would have been there already. 24 25 Virginia, they had They were scheduled to come December The minute we consent to federal detention, They They don't issue a writ to come Instead, my understanding is So this idea that he The second basis that the government had in its letter for detaining Mr. Schulte was the usage of computers. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 In the Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 7 of 20 I188SCHC 1 government's letter, they note how, if you search the IP 2 address for Mr. Schulte's apartment, they found numerous 3 log-ons to his Gmail account, in clear violation of this 4 court's order. 5 mention is that Mr. Schulte had a roommate, his cousin, Shane 6 Presnall, and this roommate, who the government and pretrial 7 services knew about, was allowed to have a computer. 8 9 But what the government's letter doesn't And more than that, based on numerous conversations, at least two conversations between pretrial services, John 10 Moscato, Josh Schulte and Shane Presnall, it was Shane's 11 understanding that pretrial services allowed him to check Mr. 12 Schulte's e-mail and to do searches for him on the Internet, 13 with the idea that Josh Schulte himself would not have access 14 to the computer. 15 7 And the government gave 14 pages of log-on information 16 to establish this point. And, Judge, we have gone through all 17 14 pages, and every single access and log-in corresponds to a 18 time that Shane Presnall is in the apartment. 19 facial recognition, it has an alphanumeric code, and there is 20 no point when Josh Schulte is left himself with the computer 21 without Shane being there, and that was their understanding. 22 Now, I spoke to John Moscato and he explained to me His computer has 23 that he never intended to give him such carte blanche to do 24 this, that that was a misunderstanding. 25 misunderstanding is not an intentional violation of this Judge, a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 8 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 8 of 20 I188SCHC 1 2 3 4 court's bail conditions. THE COURT: It is a misunderstanding and -- It's a very convenient misunderstanding, isn't it? MR. KAPLAN: I understand that. But this is something 5 which, if you look at the court's original bail order, it says 6 that pretrial services has the discretion to allow them 7 computer usage, and they believed they were complying with 8 that; they believed they were complying with the judge's order 9 by discussing it with pretrial services. 10 11 They didn't go behind anyone's back. The whole concept of not allowing Mr. Schulte access 12 to his computers is the child pornography case, what he may do, 13 those fears are allayed when you have someone else doing it for 14 him, and that's Mr. Presnall. 15 important that in 14 pages of log-in information, every single 16 one corresponds to a time when Shane is in the apartment. 17 is not him with unfettered access to the Internet. 18 And, Judge, I think it's really This More importantly, Judge, this is not him intentionally 19 violating this court's bail conditions. When you look at 18 20 U.S.C. 3148, which discusses revocation of bail, it talks about 21 either probable cause that the defendant committed a crime 22 while on release. Well, we don't have that here. 23 I will wait for your Honor. 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. KAPLAN: Go ahead. The other one is clear and convincing SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 9 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 9 of 20 I188SCHC 1 evidence that the defendant violated a bail condition. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. KAPLAN: Any other condition of release. Yes. I don't see clear and convincing 4 evidence that he intentionally violated a bail condition. This 5 was at worst a misunderstanding between not just Joshua Schulte 6 and pretrial services, but there was a third party who was 7 there, a third party who had these conversations, and based on 8 those conversations, he believed that he was able to do this. 9 So, Judge, what I am asking you is to, one, completely 10 reject the Virginia case as a basis, because Virginia itself is 11 rejecting it; they don't care. 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: And there is still no evidence. Let me see if I have the sequence right, Mr. Kaplan. On December 7, the government moved for reconsideration of the decision to remand Mr. Schulte, correct? 16 MR. KAPLAN: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. KAPLAN: Correct. Thereafter you consented to that. Yes, on the 14th. I consented with the 19 idea that the government had two bases -- one Virginia, one 20 the log-on information on the computers. 21 issue to be resolved, and we consented to detention to allow 22 Virginia to come to New York, like they were scheduled to do 23 when he was in state custody, pick him up, and bring him down 24 to Virginia to be arraigned. 25 THE COURT: I wanted the Virginia That never happened. You agreed that we would meet today as a SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 10 of 20 I188SCHC 1 2 10 control on that. MR. KAPLAN: The idea would be, if something happened 3 in Virginia, we would have a control date today forcing them to 4 send him back here to New York, but absolutely nothing has 5 happened. 6 happened on the Virginia front. I think the government will agree that nothing has 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. KAPLAN: 9 Anything else, Mr. Kaplan? I would ask if you could just put him back on the bail conditions where he was before, since there 10 was no willful violation, and if the Court wants to make clear 11 there is no computer access at all, even with a third party, we 12 will do that. 13 THE COURT: I think that was pretty clear before. 14 Mr. Laroche. 15 MR. LAROCHE: Thank you, your Honor. We still do 16 believe that detention is appropriate here, and if I could just 17 address specifically some of the points raised. 18 First, Virginia. In no way is Virginia's conduct over 19 the past few weeks an indication that they do not care about 20 Mr. Schulte. 21 conversations with Virginia, in terms of how we would get him 22 down there. 23 would writ him from here down to Virginia. 24 them that, regardless of the outcome of their arraignment, that 25 our case would proceed first, in other words, we would be After the conference last time, I had I told them the easiest way to do that is if they But I made clear to SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 11 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 11 of 20 I188SCHC 1 taking him back up here and this case would proceed first. 2 Under those circumstances, Virginia said, We are not going to 3 writ him just so that we can have a bail determination down 4 here and you take him back; you let your case go first, and we 5 will rely on the detainer that we have already put in place to 6 keep him in custody. 7 care about Mr. Schulte just does not pass muster. 8 9 So the idea that Virginia doesn't seem to I would also note, this idea that Virginia somehow came up with these charges because we passed them photographs 10 also is not the case. What happened was at the time that he 11 was arrested for the CP charges, the FBI provided Loudoun 12 County law enforcement officials with the photographs. 13 our understanding that they conducted their own investigation, 14 which included interviewing the victim, the person who was on 15 those photographs, and through interviews with that person, 16 they were comfortable, through the development of that 17 evidence, that Mr. Schulte was the one whose hands are on the 18 pictures of that photograph. 19 things. 20 It was one of the few nights that she passed out and didn't 21 remember what occurred. 22 the bathroom, which was the bathroom where she was staying as a 23 roommate of Mr. Schulte's. It's And that's based on a couple of One, that the victim remembers the night in question. She could also, apparently, identify 24 So they have developed additional information which -- 25 THE COURT: So from Virginia's standpoint, Virginia SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 12 of 20 I188SCHC 1 has now satisfied itself, at least as a preliminary matter, 2 that the victim has been identified. 3 MR. LAROCHE: They know the victim has been 4 identified, and they have also satisfied themselves to bring 5 felony charges against the defendant that the pictures are of 6 the defendant. 7 12 So this is something that we asked the court to 8 consider during the first bail arguments, and Judge Pitman 9 chose not to. But again, given there are additional state 10 sexual assault charges pending against the defendant, we do 11 think they are reliable and should be considered by the Court. 12 Second, with respect to this idea that Mr. Schulte 13 just thought he could use his roommate to conduct searches on 14 the Internet, I just do not think that is a persuasive 15 argument, your Honor. 16 arguments, the government's principal concern was that this 17 defendant would have access to the Internet, and that's not 18 just because he is a child pornography defendant, it's because 19 the defendant has specific expertise with respect to computers. 20 For over six years the defendant was employed by the Central 21 Intelligence Agency and he held positions, including technical 22 development officer, and through that experience he gained 23 expertise in computers, computer networks and the Internet, and 24 the vulnerabilities of the same. 25 defendant was just somehow checking his e-mail during this time If you recall, during both bail So the idea that this SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 13 of 20 I188SCHC 13 1 does not pass muster, and I would say is inconsistent with the 2 arguments and the court's ruling in terms of bail. 3 And even more troubling, which wasn't really addressed 4 by defense counsel, is that the defendant or someone in his 5 apartment was using TOR in his apartment during the time when 6 he was on pretrial release, and this is extremely troubling to 7 the government because TOR is a way to establish anonymous 8 connections to various Internet locations to hide the person 9 who is actually accessing those sites. It's used to access 10 child pornography. 11 you don't want to leave a trail. 12 brought it up, I think it's particularly relevant given the 13 other investigation which continues to be ongoing with respect 14 to this defendant. 15 It's also used to access Web sites where And since the defendant As defense counsel noted, in March of 2016, there was 16 a significant disclosure of classified material from the 17 Central Intelligence Agency. 18 taken during a time when the defendant was working at the 19 agency. 20 establish that he was a target of that investigation. 21 conducted a number of search warrants on the defendant's 22 residence. 23 characterization that those search warrants haven't yielded 24 anything that is consistent with his involvement in that 25 disclosure. The material that was taken was The government immediately had enough evidence to They And I would disagree with defense counsel's In fact, our investigation is ongoing. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 He remains 14 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 14 of 20 I188SCHC 1 a target of that investigation. And part of that investigation 2 is analyzing whether and to what extent TOR was used in 3 transmitting classified information. 4 defendant is now, while on pretrial release, using TOR from his 5 apartment, when he was explicitly told not to use the Internet, 6 is extremely troubling and suggests that he did willfully 7 violate his bail conditions. So the fact that the 8 So under those circumstances, your Honor, I do not 9 believe that there are a set of conditions that will ensure 10 that this defendant is not going to access the Internet and 11 pose a danger to the community. 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. KAPLAN: Mr. Kaplan. Judge, as to Virginia, this is part of 14 the issue. 15 evidence in the case of Virginia, when he can just be arraigned 16 in Virginia and let the judge there assess the situation. 17 understand Mr. Laroche is basing his comments on information he 18 has gotten from the state prosecutors, and so are we. 19 defense counsel who had a very candid conversation with the 20 state prosecutor. 21 debate in New York when there is a simple way of having it in 22 Virginia and see whether the judge in Virginia feels there is 23 any basis to remand him. 24 25 We have two attorneys in New York debating the I I had So I'm not sure why we are having this As for the Internet, just a couple of quick points. The judge's bail order on September 14, in paragraph 11, SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 15 of 20 I188SCHC 1 specifically states, "Refrain from possessing or using a 2 computer, computer network and/or Internet access, unless 3 specifically approved by pretrial services." 4 court's written order. 5 That was the Judge, we have a pretrial services member here in 6 court. 7 defendant and with Mr. Presnall. 8 using his roommate to do this, they asked if they could do 9 this, and they asked because they didn't want to run afoul of 10 15 The Court can ask him about his conversations with the This idea that he was simply this court's bail conditions. 11 Just briefly about this notion of TOR. I understand 12 that the government's position is TOR is used by many, many bad 13 people. 14 simply a way of going online without having the government look 15 at everything you do. 16 the government puts a nefarious intent to that. 17 the reason why TOR was accessed was because Mr. Schulte is 18 writing articles, conducting research and writing articles 19 about the criminal justice system and what he has been through, 20 and he does not want the government looking over his shoulder 21 and seeing what exactly he is searching. It's also used by many, many good people. The TOR is Now, I understand in a case like this, In this case, That's all it is. 22 If there is a concern about his computer access, if 23 there is a concern about him checking his e-mail, there is a 24 simple solution, no computers at all, no third-party access, 25 nothing, and that's the combination of conditions which will SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 16 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 16 of 20 I188SCHC 1 ensure that he is not a danger. Besides for that, I don't see 2 what has necessarily changed intentionally on behalf of Mr. 3 Schulte since the court's bail order two months ago. 4 THE COURT: All right. 5 On December 14 I revoked Mr. Schulte's bail. It was 6 on consent and without prejudice to Mr. Kaplan renewing a 7 motion on January 4. 8 day, we agreed that we would meet again on January 4. 9 In accordance with the proceeding that Having studied 18 U.S.C. 3148, sanctions for violation 10 of release conditions, I find that there is a combination of 11 events here, including the fact that the victim has now been 12 identified in Virginia, there is a clear danger, and I find 13 that the defendant violated the terms of the release conditions 14 by engaging in having his roommate access the computers using 15 very sophisticated methodology. 16 revoked and an order to that effect will be entered at the 17 conclusion of today's hearing. So bail continues to be 18 Anything else to take up today, Mr. Laroche? 19 MR. LAROCHE: I think there is a matter of scheduling, 20 and we did want to alert the Court to a discovery issue. As 21 the Court will recall, there was a period of time where the 22 government had not been provided a computer and hard drive so 23 that the government could essentially reproduce the defendant's 24 desktop computer. 25 computer is the computer on which the government found over As the Court might recall, the desktop SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 17 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 17 of 20 I188SCHC 1 10,000 images of child pornography. 2 that was sophisticated with several layers of encryption. 3 were provided that computer when Mr. Kaplan became counsel, was 4 retained by Mr. Schulte. 5 It was set up in a way We The FBI and the government has made a number of 6 efforts to try to load that information on to the computer. An 7 issue has arose in connection with that that we wanted to tell 8 the Court about. 9 is located on the defendant's computer, it is extremely Because there is a classified document that 10 difficult, and we have determined not possible, to remove that 11 document forensically and still provide an accurate copy of the 12 desktop computer to the defendant. 13 So in those circumstances, defense counsel is going to 14 require a top secret clearance in order to view these 15 materials. 16 and we have asked them to expedite it. 17 defendant's application is in, we believe he will get an 18 interim classification to review this material within 19 approximately two to three weeks. 20 occurred yet. 21 that particular aspect of discovery. 22 that as quickly as we can. 23 24 25 It's my understanding that that process is ongoing, As soon as the Unfortunately, that hasn't So the defendant still does not have access to THE COURT: So we are working through So it will take two to three weeks for the review after the top secret clearance is granted? MR. LAROCHE: To get an interim clearance. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 18 of 20 I188SCHC 1 2 THE COURT: 18 What is the schedule for the interim clearance? 3 MR. LAROCHE: Defense counsel has just been provided, 4 either early this week or last week, a document to essentially 5 get the application documents he needs to do the background 6 check for that clearance. 7 request, two to three weeks from his submitting it we believe 8 we will have an interim clearance for him so that he will have 9 access at that point. Once he submits that application He still will have to review the 10 materials at a location that we will make available at the FBI. 11 Unfortunately, as of right now, that is the only way we see 12 forward in terms of getting him access to be able to review it 13 in terms of discovery in this case. 14 15 THE COURT: about? 16 So what is the time period we are talking It sounds like five to six weeks. MR. LAROCHE: I know from doing these applications 17 they are extensive. 18 get the materials together, but as soon as he gets it in, it 19 will take about two to three weeks. 20 six weeks from now hopefully this issue is resolved. 21 MR. KAPLAN: So it might take a bit of time for him to So, yes, I think five to Judge, if I may. So I got a one-page 22 application last week, which I filled out and returned hours 23 later. 24 application, they are then going to give me access to a much 25 larger application, which will take me quite a while to answer. My understanding is, once they process that one-page SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 19 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 19 of 20 I188SCHC 1 Then once that's completed, the two- to three-week process will 2 start. 3 am not sure what the timetable is there. 4 So I have not yet received the larger application. THE COURT: I I should have pointed out before, when I 5 referred to a January 4 meeting, January 4 was a snow day. So 6 we are meeting on the first day subsequent to the bail order, 7 January 8. 8 David, give me a schedule for the week of February 12. 9 THE DEPUTY CLERK: 10 11 THE COURT: February 15 at 4:30 p.m. That's a control date to see where we are with regards to Mr. Kaplan's application. 12 Anything else, Mr. Kaplan? 13 MR. KAPLAN: Eventually we may have an issue with 14 speedy trial, when it comes to access to the application and 15 access to the discovery materials, but when that comes I will 16 mention it to the Court. 17 THE COURT: Fine. 18 MR. LAROCHE: Your Honor, the government moves to 19 exclude time until the February 15 control date in the 20 interests of justice so that the parties can complete 21 discovery, the defense counsel can begin reviewing it, and also 22 continue considering motion practice in this case. 23 THE COURT: 24 MR. KAPLAN: 25 THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Kaplan? I am fine as of now to this date. For the reasons stated, the time between SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 29 Filed 01/29/18 Page 20 of 20 I188SCHC 1 now and February 15 will be excluded. 2 justice to do so. 3 the public and defendant in a speedy trial. It's in the interest of Those interests outweigh the interests of 4 Thank you. 5 (Adjourned) 20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300