Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 364 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Crim. No. 17-cr-201 (ABJ)
PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.,
Defendant.

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT PAUL J. MANAFORT, JR.’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SUBMIT JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
The United States of America, by and through Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III,
hereby files this response in opposition to defendant Paul J. Manafort, Jr.’s motion to extend by
four weeks his time to submit a joint pretrial statement. (Doc. 362). As relayed to the defense, as
a matter of professional courtesy, the government does not oppose a one-week continuance but
opposes any additional delay for the reasons stated herein. The defense has made no showing
whatsoever for its requested four-week extension, and to grant it would unfairly prejudice the
government.
First, the Court’s August 1, 2018, deadline is no surprise; it has been in place for five
months, when this Court entered its Scheduling Order on March 1, 2018. (Doc. 217). Nor was it
a surprise that Manafort (like the government) would need to prepare for two trials when Manafort
elected to have two trials. Indeed, this Court advised the defense that the defendant’s choice to
have two trials might well result in “a trial in the Eastern District of Virginia before this one. So
you may want to keep that in mind.” (Jan. 16, 2018 Tr., at 12:9–12). The Eastern District of
Virginia trial was scheduled for July 2018 on March 8, 2018, after this Court’s Scheduling Order.

1

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 364 Filed 07/31/18 Page 2 of 4

Yet, although Manafort sought to adjourn the start of the Eastern District of Virginia trial, Manafort
had not sought an extension of the Scheduling Order’s August 1 deadline.
Second, Manafort claims that he “requires additional time to confer with the Special
Counsel regarding the contents of the Joint Pretrial Statement in this matter.” (Doc. 362 at 1).
That bald assertion does not address any reason for the alleged required need. In fact, the defense
has not made any effort to consult with the government, except a single communication yesterday
to determine the government’s position with respect to the current motion. Yet, the government
spent the last two weeks making disclosures to Manafort of all of the different components required
by the joint pretrial statement. The government furnished to the defense: (a) a proposed joint
statement of the case; (b) an estimate of the length of the government’s case-in-chief; (c) proposed
jury instructions; (d) a notice of intended expert witnesses; (e) an exhibit list; (f) all proposed
stipulations; (g) a proposed special jury instruction (in lieu of a list of matters for the Court to take
judicial notice); and (h) a proposed verdict form. 1 Notably, the government identified a list of
hundreds of exhibits—with Bates numbers and descriptions—it intends to use at trial, giving the
defense a roadmap of its case. With each submission to the defense, the government asked the
defense to alert it to its position, so the government could inform the Court in the joint statement
due on August 1, 2018. Not once did Manafort respond, in any way, to any of the government’s
disclosures. Similarly, the defense produced no reciprocal materials to the government.
Third, at no time did Manafort give any hint that he would seek an extension of time.
Instead, Manafort waited until he had received all of the government’s productions—all its
intended exhibits and its expert notice, for instance—before advising the government that he now

1

The government has also prepared to submit its exhibit list and copies of all its exhibits
to the Court on August 1, 2018, in the manner required by the Scheduling Order.
2

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 364 Filed 07/31/18 Page 3 of 4

intended to seek an extension of time, without ever providing any material of its own. Surely if
the gravamen of the defense’s request is that it could not reasonably prepare the joint proposed
statement on time due to the Eastern District of Virginia case, it knew that (at least) two weeks ago.
Fourth, to comply with the Scheduling Order, the government split its resources between
this case, which was indicted first, and that in the Eastern District of Virginia. Waiting until the
Monday afternoon before such a substantial submission to file the present motion serves to divert
unfairly the government’s resources away from the Eastern District of Virginia matter, with no
showing whatsoever by the defense to justify its motion. This Court should not allow such
gamesmanship.
Finally, it is not hard to see Manafort’s motion as a harbinger of a motion to continue the
September 17, 2018, trial date. The government would oppose such a continuance and believes
there is no reason to delay this trial, when it was set five months ago, prior to the trial in the Eastern
District of Virginia. And yet to grant the four-week extension would mean that the provisions of
the Scheduling Order that permit the government—and not just the defense—to know what matters
will be at issue at the trial would be abrogated. 2
In sum, the government does not object to a short adjournment as a matter of professional
courtesy, but no showing has been made warranting anything more.

2

For instance, the government would not know until less than three weeks before trial if
business record custodians from across the country, and even internationally, would be needed
(which of course the government could not count on and thus would have to prepare as if there
would not be such stipulations). Similarly, the government would not know if there were a dispute
as to any material legal issue, or if the government’s proposal for a special instruction were
acceptable, and thus that no witness needed to be prepared to testify as to certain requirements of
the Congressional and FARA registration provisions.
3

 Case 1:17-cr-00201-ABJ Document 364 Filed 07/31/18 Page 4 of 4

Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT S. MUELLER, III
Special Counsel
By:

/s/ Andrew Weissmann
Andrew Weissmann
Senior Assistant Special Counsel
Special Counsel’s Office
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 616-0800

4