United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
OPINION AND ORDER
GEORGE A. O'TOOLE, Jr., District Judge.
I. Defendant's Second Motion for Change of Venue
A. Relevant Background
At a status conference on September 23, 2013, the Court first raised the issue of venue with the defendant. At that time, defense counsel stated that they had not yet considered whether to contest venue in this District. Two months later, at a further status conference on November 12, 2013, the Court set February 28, 2014 as the deadline for the defense filing of a motion to change venue. About a month later, on December 16, 2013, the defendant moved to vacate that deadline for a motion to change venue, stating that it would be impossible to investigate whether a motion to change venue was warranted, determine whether a motion should be filed, and file an adequately briefed and supported motion by February 2014. (Mot. to Vacate Filing Deadline for Mot. to Change Venue (dkt. no. 154).) The government opposed the motion. On January 14, 2014, the Court granted the defendant's motion and vacated the filing deadline. At a status conference on February 12, 2014, the Court extended the deadline by four additional months to June 18, 2014, just slightly less than a year after the return of the indictment and nine months after the Court first raised the question.
On June 11, 2014, one week before the defendant's motion to change venue was due, the defendant filed a two-page motion for extension of time, requesting that the Court extend the deadline for six additional weeks to August 3, 2014. The government opposed the further extension. The Court denied the defendant's request for additional time.
On June 18, 2014, the defendant filed his Motion for Change of Venue. The motion relied only on a "preliminary review of still-to-be-finalized survey data, " was not supported by any declarations or exhibits, and concluded with a request that the Court grant him additional time to prepare his venue-change submission. (Mot. for Change of Venue (dkt. no. 376).) The government timely opposed the motion.
Two weeks later, on July 15, 2014, the defendant sought leave to file a reply to the government's opposition and to submit supplementary material in support. He did not append the proposed reply brief or supporting materials to the motion, but instead requested to be allowed to file the materials on August 7, 2014. On July 22, 2014, the Court granted the defendant's motion over the government's opposition.
On August 7, 2014, pursuant to the leave granted, the defendant filed his "reply" brief and supporting documents. The material, which totaled 9, 580 pages, set forth new arguments with new evidentiary support, including a 37-page declaration by an expert, Edward J. Bronson. In order to permit the government to respond to the matter raised for the first time in the defendant's "reply, " the Court permitted the government to file a sur-reply, which it did on August 25, 2014.
On August 29, 2014, the defendant filed a motion for leave to respond to the government's sur-reply, essentially asking for a third round of briefing on a motion that the defendant had already received multiple extensions of time to file. The defendant actually filed the proposed reply to the sur-reply and an affidavit from a new expert, Neil Vidmar, without waiting for a decision from the Court on the motion for leave, in contravention of the Local Rules. L.R. 7.1(B)(3), D. Mass. That same day, the government opposed the defendant's motion, arguing that the third round of briefing was unwarranted and that, "[b]y ignoring deadlines and filing unauthorized briefs without first obtaining permission, Tsarnaev has indicated that he does not believe the rules apply to him." (Gov't's Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Leave to File Resp. and Mot. to Strike Def.'s Resp. (dkt. no. 519).) The Court granted the government's motion to strike the defendant's inappropriately filed materials and denied the defendant's motion for leave to file.
Despite the Court's denial of his motion for leave to file the materials, the defendant filed yet another motion on September 4, 2014 to "supplement" the record by responding to the government's sur-reply and to enter into the record the just-stricken Vidmar declaration. Unsurprisingly, the government opposed the defendant's renewed request. On September 18, 2014, the Court denied the defendant's motion to supplement the record, stating that "[t]he record is complete." (Status Conf. Tr. at 4 (dkt. no. 580).)
The Court denied the motion to change venue in an order entered September 24, 2014 (dkt. no. 577). There were no further filings on the issue of venue until the defendant filed his Second Motion for Change of Venue, the subject of this Order. The second motion relies largely on previously argued grounds but seeks to expand the supporting materials by, among other things, including the Vidmar affidavit which the Court already twice rejected. The government moved to strike Vidmar's affidavit and related material and, after receiving leave from Court, filed a late opposition to the defendant's second motion to change venue. The defendant opposed the motion to strike and, with leave, filed a reply to the government's opposition.
On December 31, 2014, having signaled the decision to both parties at a jury selectionrelated lobby conference on December 30, the Court denied the defendant's motion to change venue, stating that this explanatory opinion would be issued shortly.
i. Opportunity to Develop Argument and Supporting ...