Orderonshowcausemumfordcase

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 2192

Filed 08/08/17

Page 1 of 4

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1 2 3 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

7 8 9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11 12

CASE NO. 3:16-CR-00051-BR

AMMON BUNDY, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14 15

This matter comes before the Court on Counsel for the District Court’s motion to set a

16

briefing schedule and hearing to define the scope of the show cause hearing (Dkt. No. 2186), the

17

parties’ proposed scheduling order (Dkt. No. 2187), and attorney Marcus Mumford’s motion to

18

extend time to file an application for final transcripts (Dkt. No. 2188). Having thoroughly

19

considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument

20

unnecessary and hereby ADOPTS IN PART the proposed scheduling order (Dkt. No. 2187),

21

GRANTS Mr. Mumford’s motion for an extension (Dkt. No. 2188), and DENIES Counsel for

22

the District Court’s motion to set a briefing schedule and hearing to define the scope of the show

23

cause hearing (Dkt. No. 2186) for the reasons explained herein.

24

This case centers on the District Court’s order to show cause why Mr. Mumford’s pro

25

hac vice status should not be revoked. (Dkt. No. 2069.) A hearing on the order to show cause—

26

to last one to two days—is scheduled for January 8, 2018 at 10 a.m. (Dkt. No. 2156.) Counsel for

ORDER PAGE - 1

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 2192

Filed 08/08/17

Page 2 of 4

1

the District Court (hereinafter Mr. Robert Weaver) and Mr. Mumford submitted the following

2

briefing schedule:

3 4 5 6 7

Mr. Mumford’s Motion for the Production of Final Transcript Excerpts Mr. Mumford’s Response Brief to the Order to Show Cause Opposition to the Response Reply thereto Hearing

August 3, 2017 October 17, 2017 November 17, 2017 December 8, 2017 January 8, 2017

8

(Dkt. No. 2187 at 1–2). However, shortly after the filing of the proposed schedule, Mr. Mumford

9

filed a motion for an extension of time to file the motion for the production of final transcript

10

excerpts. (Dkt. No. 2188.) Mr. Weaver does not oppose the extension provided it does not affect

11

the October 17, 2017 response deadline. (Id.) The Court hereby GRANTS Mr. Mumford’s

12

motion for an extension (Dkt. No. 2188) and sets the following schedule:

13 14 15 16 17

Mr. Mumford’s Motion for the Production of Final Transcript Excerpts Mr. Mumford’s Response Brief to the Order to Show Cause Opposition to the Response Reply thereto Hearing

August 8, 2017 October 17, 2017 November 17, 2017 December 8, 2017 January 8, 2017

18 19

As to Mr. Weaver’s motion to set a briefing schedule to define the scope of the show

20

cause hearing, he moves for a “briefing schedule and hearing to be set on the limited issue of

21

what, if any, evidence may be presented at the hearing” on the order to show cause. (Dkt. No.

22

2186 at 2.) Mr. Weaver’s position is that because the basis for the revocation in the order to show

23

cause is Mr. Mumford’s conduct in open court as recorded in the transcript, he does not need—

24

and is not entitled to—an evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. No. 2187 at 2.) Specifically, Mr. Weaver

25

argues that “‘notice and an opportunity to be heard’—not a full scale evidentiary hearing—is all

26

that is required for revocation of pro hac vice status.” (Id.) (quoting Lasar v. Ford Motor Co.,

ORDER PAGE - 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

1 2

Document 2192

Filed 08/08/17

Page 3 of 4

399 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005)).

Mr. Mumford counters by pointing out that the bases for revocation in the order to show

3

cause refer to both matters inside and outside the transcript. (Dkt. No. 2187 at 3.) Further, he

4

points out that in Lasar, the court did conduct an evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 3–4) (citing Lasar,

5

399 F.3d at 1107–08 (referring to the attorney’s testimony and an exhibit to which the attorney’s

6

counsel did not object)). Finally, Mr. Mumford argues that because the judge who will rule on

7

the order to show cause is two judges removed from the conduct in question, he should be

8

allowed a full evidentiary hearing to address the issues raised in the order to show cause. (Dkt.

9

No. 2187 at 5.)

10

The Court agrees with Mr. Mumford. While Lasar held that notice and an opportunity to

11

be heard are all that are required for revocation of pro hac vice status, the appellant was seeking

12

“the full panoply of procedural protections that are normally reserved for defendants charged

13

with a criminal offense, such as an independent prosecutor, proof beyond a reasonable doubt,

14

and a jury trial.” Lasar, 399 F.3d at 1110. Mr. Mumford is not seeking such protections, but only

15

to put on evidence in support of his opposition to the order to show cause.

16

Given the severity of the sanction at issue, the Court finds that Mr. Mumford should be

17

allowed to present any relevant evidence he sees fit. If the parties disagree on what constitutes

18

relevant evidence for the order to show cause, they may file a motion with the Court. The Court

19

will caution Mr. Mumford that the evidence must relate only to his conduct outlined in the order

20

to show cause. Further, the hearing will not last longer than two days, so Mr. Mumford must

21

present his evidence within that time frame. Accordingly, Counsel for the District Court’s

22

motion for a briefing schedule and hearing to define the scope of the show cause hearing (Dkt.

23

No. 2186) is DENIED.

24

//

25

//

26

//

ORDER PAGE - 3

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

1

Document 2192

Filed 08/08/17

Page 4 of 4

DATED this 8th day of August, 2017.

A

2 3 4

John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

ORDER PAGE - 4