If for no other reason than that COVID (shut downs and delays) have now a year later greatly compressed all federal trial docket timelines, in Manhattan — I might have ventured to predict that Martin’s latest gambit would fail. But there is much more: the law doesn’t really support his clearly last minute and dilatory attempt to put off trial here. [That said, I get it: attending the trial means having to leave the relatively sane environment of FCI Allenwood Low, and return to the MDC in Manhattan — fetid, dangerous… overcrowded and freezing often in December. So, Martin would much prefer to already be at a halfway house, when this trial begins — but that is not how it works. He is being treated no worse than anyone else. I may dislike those conditions — but he isn’t… special.]
From the response papers just filed tonight, it is clear he knew for months that attending this [redacted] program might be an issue for scheduling a trial — but only raised it after there would be no way to effectively accommodate both schedules. He was apparently banking on the court to give him yet another free pass. But I think that time has ended — and perhaps it ended… long ago.
The central point the FTC lawyers make below, echoes mine of this week: the court is under no duty to shorten his sentence. Period — and it is very unclear that, even if the court moved the trial date — it would actually result in a shorter sentence in any event.
Here’s the business end of it — and the full PDF file:
…Setting aside [Martin’s] misplaced constitutional concerns, having to serve the full term of a lawful sentence is not “prejudicial” because it was imposed as a direct result of Shkreli’s own illegal conduct….
Because Shkreli’s decision-making precipitated his current circumstances, they cannot serve as good cause to move the date of trial.
Finally, Shkreli further fails to show that an adjournment will meaningfully change his ability to participate at trial. When Shkreli moved to stay discovery in December 2020, he claimed that he could be released from prison as soon as September 2021. ECF 317 at 1. Now Shkreli claims he will be available for trial after May 1, 2022 based on another chain of uncertain events, including: (1) Shkreli will successfully complete [redacted program]; (2) Shkreli will be released from prison a year early; and (3) Shkreli will be placed in a New York City halfway house. But even if each of these contingencies come to pass, Shkreli will have to continue to participate in [redacted program] which could have the same impact on his availability to attend trial….
Plaintiffs “and the public have a significant interest in resolving the issues raised by the plaintiffs’ claims with due expedition.” ECF 368 at 3 (rejecting Shkreli’s motion to stay discovery). Additionally, the Plaintiff states are seeking equitable monetary relief with the intention of compensating consumers harmed by Shkreli’s [unlawful Daraprim® monopolization] scheme. Shkreli’s stated rationale for delaying trial fails to overcome the public interest in resolving the issues in this case in a timely manner. For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Shkreli’s motion to adjourn the trial….
Parts of the filing refer to Martin’s private health conditions / needs — which presumably the [redacted] program is designed to alleviate, or at least address. So portions of it are sealed from view, on the public docket — as you may discern, here.
Now you know — as I say, I expect the court will keep his current trial date.