From: ' (USAFLS)" To: 1=6•1..,S " k (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Proposed Joint Status Report and Motion to Reset Briefing and Discovery Schedule Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:03:11 +0000 Importance: Normal I agree on waiting. I'm not sure whether we need anything from petitioners. Perhaps some requests for admissions? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:41 PM To: . (USAFLS) ca; (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Proposed Joint Status Report and Motion to Reset Briefing and Discovery Schedule I vote for waiting to see what else they want to discover from the government. Insofar as discovery to the petitioners, do we need information from petitioners to support our cross-motion? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:35 PM To: (USAFLS) (USAFLS) < EM> Subject: FW: Proposed Joint Status Report and Motion to Reset Briefing and Discovery Schedule Please see below. Do you want to wait and see what they are or start drafting some discovery ourselves? Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: Paul Cassell [ Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:26 AM To: (USAFLS) ; Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Proposed Joint Status Report and Motion to Reset Briefing and Discovery Schedule Hey Marie, Brad and I have been working on one additional set of discovery requests for the Government. We didn't want you to sign off on a schedule before you had a chance to review those and factor those into whatever schedule you want — i.e., we didn't want to sandbag you with those. We should have those finalized in the next few hours and will send you way. At that point, we're good with the proposed schedule — but we wanted you to have the requests before signing off. As for settlement, Brad is handling those issues and he's always glad to talk to see if there is any progress. Paul Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law University Distinguished Professor of Law EFTA00211120