IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 3, 2011
HERBERT JAMES CODDINGTON, PETITIONER,
DEATH PENALTY CASE VINCE CULLEN, ACTING WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
The parties have requested that petitioner's reply to the opposition to petitioner's motion for discovery be continued to late April 2011, and that the hearing take place sometime in May. Concurrently, the parties request that any opposition to respondent's motion for discovery be similarly scheduled. The parties request that the March 17, 2011 hearing on the discovery motions be vacated.
The discovery motion was filed December 21, 2010 (after a period of some months given to file that motion). The effect of the parties' requests would be to extend the course of the discovery request/motion to a time period near one year -- just to determine what to request in discovery and to hear the matter. The court may then take some time afterwards to issue an order. This time period is simply too long. If a discovery motion takes such an amount of time, it foreshadows an unduly prolonged time within which to adjudicate this habeas petition.
The undersigned will hear petitioner's discovery motion on the March 17th date. No written reply is necessary as oral argument can stand in lieu of a written reply. At that hearing, an expeditious time schedule will be set for an opposition to respondent's discovery motion to the extent it cannot be resolved at the March hearing.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.