United States v. Loo
2:24-cr-00072
W.D. Wash.May 19, 2025Background
- Defendant Steven T. Loo filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, as well as motions to seal related exhibits and to file an overlength brief, after the pretrial motions deadline.
- The deadline for pretrial motions was May 2, 2025, set since November 15, 2024.
- Loo filed his motions on May 19, 2025, without first seeking leave of court to make late filings.
- Loo claimed new clarity regarding prosecution misconduct arose with the government's trial exhibit production on May 12, 2025, but the explanation lacked detail.
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12 requires a showing of "good cause" to permit untimely pretrial motions, which the court found lacking here.
- The court struck all of Loo’s motions without prejudice and granted a short window for him to seek leave to file late, setting an accelerated briefing schedule due to the impending June 30, 2025 trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for Late Pretrial Motions | Motions must be filed by the deadline unless good cause is shown | Government misconduct only became clear after deadline due to new disclosures | No good cause shown; motions struck |
| Sufficiency of "Good Cause" | Explanation must be legitimate, not dilatory | New information emerged May 12, 2025 | Rationale given was insufficient |
| Procedure for Untimely Motions | Compliance with local and federal rules is mandatory | Sought to file without prior leave | Leave not obtained, procedure not followed |
| Opportunity to Cure | N/A | Should be permitted to file if good cause shown | May file motion for leave with detailed justification |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ghanem, 993 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2021) (untimely pretrial motions require adequate justification or are waived)
- United States v. Anderson, 472 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court has discretion in determining good cause for late motions)
- United States v. Tekle, 329 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003) (legitimate explanation required to excuse missed deadlines)
- United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435 (9th Cir. 1976) (inexcusably dilatory filing does not meet good cause requirement)
- United States v. Davis, 663 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1981) (waiver of pretrial motions requires showing of legitimate reasoning)