Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 87 Filed 03/20/17 Page 1 of 4

1 RAYMOND N. HULSER
Chief
2 Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
3
JOHN D. KELLER
4 Illinois State Bar No. 6293104
VICTOR R. SALGADO
5 DC Bar No. 975013
SIMON J. CATALDO
6 Massachusetts Bar No. 690879
Trial Attorneys
7 Public Integrity Section, Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
8 1400 New York Ave, NW, 12th floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
9 Tel: (202) 514-1412
John.Keller2@usdoj.gov
10 Victor.Salgado@usdoj.gov
Simon.Cataldo@usdoj.gov
11
12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
14 United States of America,
2:16-CR-01012-SRB
15 Plaintiff,
16 vs. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO
17 CONTINUE TRIAL
Joseph M. Arpaio,
18
Defendant.
19
20
On January 25, 2017, this Court scheduled trial in this case for April 25, 2017. Lead
21
counsel for the defendant, Mr. McDonald, was present and had previously agreed to the
22
trial date. Now just five weeks before trial, additional counsel has filed a motion to
23
continue based on a personal obligation that he scheduled well over a year ago. Mot. to
24
Continue Trial at 2, ECF No. 86. Mr. Goldman requests a sixty-day extension of all of the
25
defendants deadlines, along with the trial date. The motion is meritless. It should be
26
denied.
27
Counsel for the defendant have had ample notice of the pending proceedings and
28
anticipated trial in this case for over seven months. Indeed, April 25, 2017, is the third trial
 Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 87 Filed 03/20/17 Page 2 of 4

1 date set in this case. After Judge Snow issued a criminal contempt referral of the defendant
2 on August 19, 2016, this Court issued a show cause order on October 25, 2016, and an
3 initial trial date of December 6, 2016, was set. Trial was subsequently continued to April
4 4, 2017, upon the defendants motion. This Court then held a pre-trial conference on
5 January 25, 2017,1 during which the Court reset trial for April 25, 2017, and set early
6 deadlines for motions and pre-trial disclosures with the express intent of providing counsel
7 with sufficient time to prepare for the April 25, 2017, trial date. At no time during the
8 pendency of these proceedings did Mr. McDonald or Mr. Goldman indicate to the Court
9 that Mr. Goldman would join the defense team or that he had personal obligations that
10 would interfere with an April trial date. Indeed, both counsel were aware prior to March
11 1, 2017, that Mr. Goldman intended to file an appearance in this case, see Gov. Exhibit B,2
12 and yet Mr. Goldman waited until March 17, 2017after the government had produced its
13 exhibit list, witness lists, and copies of its anticipated trial exhibitsto file his notice of
14 appearance and motion to continue trial. Mr. Goldmans long-established personal and
15 social obligations on a weekend provide no basis for a continuance, and the Court should
16 reject this last-minute maneuver. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A).
17 The defendants motion also suggests that the unsurprising inclusion on the
18 governments witness list of Timothy Casey, an attorney who Maricopa County retained
19 as outside counsel to defend the County in the Melendres litigation, somehow justifies a
20 continuance of the trial date. See Mot. to Continue Trial at 2, ECF No. 86. It does not.
21 Mr. Casey has already testified in depositions and in the 2015 civil contempt hearing
22
23
24 1
The government recalls that Mr. Goldman was present at the January 25, 2017,
25 hearing. In fact, Mr. Goldman and Mr. McDonald may have known at that hearing that
Mr. Goldman was planning to associate as counsel. Mr. McDonald stated to the Court:
26 And, Your Honor, as I indicated at the bench, Im in the process of trying to bring on
additional counsel. Gov. Ex. A at 32.
27 2
The victims names have been redacted from Gov. Exhibit B to protect them from
28 public disclosure.
-2-
 Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 87 Filed 03/20/17 Page 3 of 4

1 regarding his multiple conversations with the defendant in which he informed the
2 defendant of the requirements of the preliminary injunction. The government intends to
3 elicit only the same information that Mr. Casey has already testified to during his
4 depositions and at the hearing held in open courtproceedings at which Mr. McDonald
5 himself was present and represented the defendant. Mr. Casey testified pursuant to Judge
6 Snows ruling that the privilege had been waived as to communications between Mr. Casey
7 and MCSO employees about the subject matter of the preliminary injunction. See
8 Melendres v. Arpaio, no. 2:07-cv-02513, Order, ECF No. 1094. Thus, no privilege
9 remains. Any privilege would, in any event, belong to the County, rather than to the
10 defendant personally. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d 1083, 1092
11 (9th Cir. 2016) (Whatever privilege such communications may implicate is held by the
12 State of Oregon, not [the former Governor] personally).
13 For all of the reasons stated above, the motion should be denied.
14
15 Respectfully Submitted,

16 RAYMOND N. HULSER
Chief, Public Integrity Section
17
18 By: /s/ John D. Keller
John D. Keller
19 Victor R. Salgado
Simon J. Cataldo
20
Trial Attorneys
21 United States Department of Justice
Public Integrity Section
22 1400 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
23
(202) 514-1412
24 John.Keller2@usdoj.gov
Victor.Salgado@usdoj.gov
25 Simon.Cataldo@usdoj.gov
26
27
28
-3-
 Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 87 Filed 03/20/17 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3
4
5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on todays date, I electronically filed the foregoing via the
CM/ECF system which will provide notice to counsel of record for the defendant.
7
8
/s/ John D. Keller
9 John D. Keller
Trial Attorney
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-