Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

UNITED STATES v. SIDOO (2020)

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SIDOO et al., Defendants.

Criminal Action No. 19-10080-NMG

Decided: July 02, 2020

Eric S. Rosen, Alexia R. De Vincentis, Justin D. O'Connell, Kristen A. Kearney, Stephen E. Frank, Leslie Wright, United States Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, Karin Michelle Bell, U.S. Attorney's Office, Worcester, MA, for Plaintiff. David Z. Chesnoff, Pro Hac Vice, Richard A. Schonfeld, Pro Hac Vice, Chesnoff & Schonfeld, Las Vegas, NV, Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Boston, MA, for Defendant David Sidoo. David S. Schumacher, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, P.C., Boston, MA, Jordan R.C. Kearney, Pro Hac Vice, Hooper, Lundy Bookman, P.C., San Francisco, CA, Patric Hooper, Pro Hac Vice, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Gregory Colburn, Amy Colburn. Brian T. Kelly, Joshua C.H. Sharp, Lauren Maynard, Nixon Peabody LLP, Robert L. Sheketoff, One McKinley Square, Boston, MA, Donald J. Campbell, Campbell & Williams, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant Gamal Abdelaziz. Stephen H. Sutro, Pro Hac Vice, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA, Christian G. Kiely, David E. Meier, Melinda L. Thompson, Todd & Weld, Boston, MA, for Defendants Diane Blake, Todd Blake. Chase A. Scolnick, Pro Hac Vice, Jennifer L. Keller, Pro Hac Vice, Reuben Camper Cahn, Pro Hac Vice, Keller/Anderle LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant I-Hsin Chen. Mark E. Beck, Pro Hac Vice, Mark Beck Law, Pasadena, CA, Perry J. Viscounty, Allison S. Blanco, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Roman Martinez, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Sean M. Berkowitz, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL, George W. Vien, Joshua N. Ruby, Donnelly, Conroy & Gelhaar, LLP, William J. Trach, Latham & Watkins LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Mossimo Giannulli. Melinda Haag, Pro Hac Vice, Walter Brown, Pro Hac Vice, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robin Linsenmayer, Pro Hac Vice, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Defendant Manuel Henriquez. Eoin P. Beirne, Mark E. Robinson, R. Robert Popeo, Cory S. Flashner, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, for Defendant Elisabeth Kimmel. David C. Scheper, Pro Hac Vice, Scheper Kim & Harris LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Perry J. Viscounty, Allison S. Blanco, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Roman Martinez, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Sean M. Berkowitz, Pro Hac Vice, Latham & Watkins LLP, Chicago, IL, William J. Trach, Latham & Watkins LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Lori Loughlin. Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin LLP, Boston, MA, Joan M. Loughnane, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, John C. Hueston, Pro Hac Vice, Hueston Hennigan, Newport Beach, CA, Marshall A. Camp, Pro Hac Vice, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant William McGlashan, Jr. Allen J. Ruby, Pro Hac Vice, Jack P. DiCanio, Pro Hac Vice, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Michael K. Loucks, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Marci Palatella. Andrew E. Tomback, Pro Hac Vice, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, Michael Kendall, Yakov Malkiel, White & Case, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant John Wilson. Megan A. Siddall, Seth B. Orkand, Tracy A. Miner, Miner Orkand Siddall LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Homayoun Zadeh. Matthew L. Schwartz, Pro Hac Vice, Sara K. Winik, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, Nicholas C. Theodorou, Foley Hoag LLP, Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Michael Pabian, Michael Pabian Law Office, LLC, Boston, MA, for Defendant Robert Zangrillo.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

The government has charged defendants with conspiring with William “Rick” Singer (“Singer”) to have their children fraudulently admitted to elite universities by, inter alia, fabricating applications, falsifying academic and athletic credentials, cheating on standardized tests, making payments to corrupt exam proctors and bribing university employees and athletic coaches.

Pending before this Court are two motions by defendant John Wilson (“Wilson” or “defendant”): (1) Renewed Motion to Compel the Production of Exculpatory Evidence (Docket No. 1227), and (2) Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Applicability of the Court's May 8, 2020 Order to Defendant John Wilson (Docket No. 1184).

I. Renewed Motion to Compel

Upon consideration of Wilson's Motion to Compel, the government's opposition thereto and Wilson's Reply Brief (Docket Nos. 1227, 1270 and 1310), the Court concludes that, while Wilson is entitled to all exculpatory evidence in the government's possession, he is not entitled to know why the government cancelled a meeting on September 23, 2018, or why it chose not to record all calls and virtual meetings in which its cooperating witnesses participated. Wilson will be permitted to inquire at trial of government witnesses about events that occurred in September, 2018, and to petition the Court that it should instruct the jury about adverse inferences regarding those events. Furthermore, the government will be directed to confirm with the Court and Wilson that it has reviewed its records and has produced all Brady material with respect to the subject events.

II. Motion for Reconsideration

Wilson has also moved for reconsideration of this Court's May 8, 2020, Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment based on government misconduct (Docket Nos. 1184 and 971). The government responds that Wilson has not met the prerequisite standard for reconsideration.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), a party may “direct the district court's attention to newly discovered material evidence or a manifest error of law or fact ․ enabl[ing] the court to correct its own errors ․” Aybar v. Crispin-Reyes, 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997). A motion for reconsideration should be granted only if the court has patently misunderstood a party or there is a significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issues to the court by the parties. Reyes Canada v. Rey Hernandez, 224 F.R.D. 46, 48 (D.P.R. 2004) (citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)).

This Court finds that Wilson has not met this rigorous standard. As suggested previously, cross-examination of Singer or proffering testimony of Wilson family members may be fully utilized at trial.

ORDER

In accordance with the foregoing, defendant Wilson's Renewed Motion to Compel the Production of Exculpatory Evidence (Docket No. 1227) is ALLOWED to the extent that the government is directed to confirm that it has reviewed its records and has produced all Brady material with respect to the subject events but is otherwise DENIED. Defendant Wilson's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Applicability of The Court's May 8, 2020 Order to Defendant John Wilson (Docket No. 1184) is DENIED.

So ordered.

GORTON, J.

Was this helpful?

Response sent, thank you

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law

UNITED STATES v. SIDOO (2020)

Docket No: Criminal Action No. 19-10080-NMG

Decided: July 02, 2020

Court: United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Need to find an attorney?

Search our directory by legal issue

Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

    More Options

    For Legal Professionals

    Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

    Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

    Sign up

    Learn About the Law

    Get help with your legal needs

    FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

    Go to Learn About the Law

    Need to find an attorney?

    Search our directory by legal issue

    Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

      More Options
      Copied to clipboard