Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
LARISSA JORDAN, CASE NO. 2:25-cr-00105-LK Plaintiff, ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL v. AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS DEADLINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Larissa Jordan’s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial and Extend Pretrial Motions Deadline, Dkt. No. 21, and on the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Scheduling Order, Dkt. No. 23. Ms. Jordan seeks to continue her trial date from July 28, 2025 to February 2, 2026, and to continue the pretrial motions deadline from June 19, 2025 to the dates indicated in the proposed scheduling order. Id. at 1; Dkt. No. 23-1 at 1–2. The Government does not oppose the requested continuance. Id .
*2 Ms. Jordan is charged with one count of Production of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (e). Dkt. No. 14 at 1–2. At the arraignment, she pleaded not guilty to the charges, requested discovery, and was remanded to custody. Dkt. No. 20.
Ms. Jordan avers that the Government has provided limited discovery to date, and “other discovery requests are pending,” including “another batch” that the Government will deliver soon. Dkt. No. 21 at 1. In addition, preparation for trial “will likely require expert assistance involving the analysis of electronic devices.” Id. at 2. As such, Ms. Jordan’s counsel requests additional time to receive and review the discovery, investigate the allegations, address legal issues, research pretrial motions, obtain records, continue plea negotiations with the Government, and explain potential plea, trial, or sentencing consequences to Ms. Jordan. Id. Ms. Jordan has waived her right to a speedy trial up to and including February 16, 2026. Dkt. No. 22 at 1.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and Ms. Jordan in any speedier trial. Specifically, the Court finds that failure to grant the requested continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice and would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, due to defense counsel’s need for more time to receive and review discovery, investigate the allegations, address legal issues, research pretrial motions, obtain records, consult with Ms. Jordan, and prepare for trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). The Court finds that the additional time requested is a reasonable period of delay and will be necessary to provide counsel and Ms. Jordan reasonable time to accomplish the above tasks.
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion, Dkt. No. 21, and ORDERS that the trial date for Ms. Jordan shall be continued from July 28, 2025 to February 2, 2026, and that the pretrial motions deadline shall be continued from June 19, 2025 to December 15, 2025. It is further *3 ORDERED that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B), the period of delay from the date of this Order to the new trial date is EXCLUDED when computing the time within which Ms. Jordan’s trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act.
However, the Court DENIES without prejudice the parties’ request for a scheduling order, Dkt. No. 23, which permits motions in limine to be filed less than a month before trial (January 5, 2026). This provides the Court with insufficient time to review and rule on the motions. The Court typically sets pretrial motions deadlines (which includes motions in limine) at least six weeks before trial so that it can address them by the pretrial conference (10 days prior to trial). Because the Court sets the pretrial motions deadline for December 15, 2025 in this Order, it expects the parties’ motions in limine to be filed on or before that date. The parties may propose an amended scheduling order in accordance with this Order.
Dated this 13th day of June, 2025.
A Lauren King United States District Judge