Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira re [386] MOTION for Extension of Time of Reply Deadlines Replies due by 3/18/2024. (Bratt, Jay)
Page 1 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 1 of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-80101(s)-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.
________________________________/
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF REPLY DEADLINES
The defendants have jointly moved for a ten-day extension for filing the outstanding reply
briefs in support of their various motions, with the exception of defendant Trump’s reply briefs in
support of his motions to dismiss Counts 1-32 of the Superseding Indictment on vagueness grounds
(ECF No. 325) and his motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment based on the Presidential
Records Act (ECF No. 327).1 An extension of time such that they receive more than twice the
time allotted by the Local Rule is unreasonable. The briefing schedule has been in place for
months. Only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, does the defense complain that it needs more
time—mostly based on circumstances about which they have been aware throughout the pendency
of their motions: the trial date in New York has been in place since 20222; the evidence Nauta and
Defendant De Oliveira joined Trump’s motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment based
on the Presidential Records Act (see ECF No. 331) but has filed nothing separate in support of the
relief Trump seeks in that motion. Defendant Nauta has nothing pending at Thursday’s hearing.
Trump has also sought to adjourn the New York trial. See trump-motion-to-delay.pdf
(documentcloud.org)Page 2 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 2 of
DeOliveira will inspect tomorrow has been available to them since the Government first provided
them discovery3; and Nauta fails to explain how any questions about grand jury practice in the
District of Columbia could affect his reply briefing and why he has waited until now to seek this
information. And the fact that the defense must travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday is not
unique to those teams and poses no cause for such delay. The Court should deny the defendants’
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By:
/s/ Jay I. Bratt
Jay I. Bratt
Counselor to the Special Counsel
Special Bar ID #A950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. David V. Harbach, II
Assistant Special Counsel
Special Bar ID #A
Included in the Government’s first discovery production to each set of defense counsel
were digital copies of the evidence seized from Mar-a-Lago, minus the documents with
classification markings. These items are found at Bates range USA-00337507 - USA-00359428. Page 3 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 3 of
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jay I. Bratt, certify that on March 11, 2024, I served the foregoing document on all parties
via CM/ECF.
/s/ Jay I. Bratt__________________
Jay I. Bratt
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-80101(s)-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.
________________________________/
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF REPLY DEADLINES
The defendants have jointly moved for a ten-day extension for filing the outstanding reply
briefs in support of their various motions, with the exception of defendant Trump’s reply briefs in
support of his motions to dismiss Counts 1-32 of the Superseding Indictment on vagueness grounds
(ECF No. 325) and his motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment based on the Presidential
Records Act (ECF No. 327).1 An extension of time such that they receive more than twice the
time allotted by the Local Rule is unreasonable. The briefing schedule has been in place for
months. Only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, does the defense complain that it needs more
time—mostly based on circumstances about which they have been aware throughout the pendency
of their motions: the trial date in New York has been in place since 20222; the evidence Nauta and
1
Defendant De Oliveira joined Trump’s motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment based
on the Presidential Records Act (see ECF No. 331) but has filed nothing separate in support of the
relief Trump seeks in that motion. Defendant Nauta has nothing pending at Thursday’s hearing.
2
Trump has also sought to adjourn the New York trial. See trump-motion-to-delay.pdf
(documentcloud.org)
PDF Page 3
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 2 of 3
DeOliveira will inspect tomorrow has been available to them since the Government first provided
them discovery3; and Nauta fails to explain how any questions about grand jury practice in the
District of Columbia could affect his reply briefing and why he has waited until now to seek this
information. And the fact that the defense must travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday is not
unique to those teams and poses no cause for such delay. The Court should deny the defendants’
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By:
/s/ Jay I. Bratt
Jay I. Bratt
Counselor to the Special Counsel
Special Bar ID #A5502946
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
David V. Harbach, II
Assistant Special Counsel
Special Bar ID #A5503068
3
Included in the Government’s first discovery production to each set of defense counsel
were digital copies of the evidence seized from Mar-a-Lago, minus the documents with
classification markings. These items are found at Bates range USA-00337507 - USA-00359428.
2
PDF Page 4
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 388 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jay I. Bratt, certify that on March 11, 2024, I served the foregoing document on all parties
via CM/ECF.
/s/ Jay I. Bratt__________________
Jay I. Bratt
3
Back to 
