IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 13, 2011
MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES, ALBERT G. BROWN, PLAINTIFFS,
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS. PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jeremy Fogel United States District Judge
JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY;
[PROPOSED] ORDER;GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION
The Warden at San Quentin has determined that he will need until the end of August 2011 to select a new execution team.
Defendants are in the process of preparing their discovery responses in compliance with their discovery obligations set forth in the Court's March 11, 2011 order, and are preparing these materials for disclosure. Defendants will thereafter supplement the foregoing discovery responses after the selection of a new execution team in a timely manner as required by Rule 26(e), and in any event, within 14 days of the completion of the selection of the new team, unless modified by agreement of the parties.
Defendants will produce responsive documents to Plaintiffs, including documents related to the selection of the new execution team, on a rolling basis as they are collected.
The production of such documents will be completed by June 30, 2011, except for any additional production concerning the new team's selection and ongoing training or 16 changes to the execution team personnel. Defendants will notify Plaintiffs of the creation 17 of additional documents concerning the team's ongoing training (and produce such 18 documentation) and/or any changes to the team personnel in a timely manner as required 19 20 by Rule 26(e), and in any event, within 14 days following the creation of the document or 21 the change to the team personnel, unless modified by agreement of the parties.
Plaintiffs have renewed their request that Defendants provide the
identification numbers and team training materials for the period
2008 through August
29, 2010. See Plaintiffs' Discovery Hearing Conference Report, Mar. 3,
2011, at 2-4
(ECF No. 509); Contra Order Re Discovery and Defendants' Motion to
Strike, at 2 n.1
(ECF No.513) (it "appears from counsel's representations at the
hearing that this issue 28 has been resolved."). The parties will work
together to resolve this issue, and if it cannot
be resolved, will submit a joint statement to the Court for its review
and resolution of the
issue by September 30, 2011.
Plaintiffs will review on a rolling basis the documents and
information received in
order to, inter alia, identify witnesses for depositions.
Depositions will be scheduled 5 thereafter. At this point, Plaintiffs
anticipate deposing witnesses with knowledge of the 6 7 regulations
and execution team documents, document custodians, and present and
execution team managers and participants. In this regard, Plaintiffs
counsel have 9 conferred with Defendants' counsel generally about the
scheduling of the depositions
(see L.R. 30-1), and counsel are aware of and understand that counsel
have other 11 professional obligations, including trials, that
previously have been calendared. The 12 parties will work together to
schedule depositions on dates certain when the witnesses 13 14 and
counsel are available. L.R. 30-1.
If a dispute arises during a deposition regarding a party's assertion
of a privilege,
objection, or instruction to a witness that cannot be resolved by
conferring in good faith, counsel will contact Judge Fogel's
chambers pursuant to Local Rule 37-1(b) to ask if the
Court is available to address the problem through a telephone
conference during the 19 20 deposition, or whether counsel can be
directed to a Magistrate Judge to resolve the matter. Counsel will
advise the Court of the deposition schedule via e-mail to Mr.
Kolombatovich when the depositions are set.
Based upon counsel for Plaintiffs' review of certain documentation produced by Defendants to date, Plaintiffs believe that it may be incomplete. Plaintiffs believe that these issues can be clarified during depositions. If the production of such records is in 27 fact incomplete, additional time will be required for Defendants to make complete 28 productions, for Plaintiffs' counsel to review the records, and for the parties to complete the depositions. In addition, Defendants hope to obtain further discovery responses from Plaintiffs and will work with Plaintiffs to resolve these issues before bringing them to the Court for any resolution.
Once Defendants complete their discovery obligations set forth in the Court's March 11, 2011 order and all supplements thereto, and Plaintiffs complete all non-expert 6 7 depositions, Plaintiffs will supplement their responses to Defendants' contention interrogatories in a timely manner, and in any event within 14 days, unless modified by 9 agreement of the parties. After the foregoing discovery has been completed, the parties 10 will identify expert information as required by Rule 26(a)(2), and present their experts for 11 depositions thereafter.
In light of this stipulated discovery schedule which has been carefully considered by the parties and is entered into in a good faith attempt to meet the Court's expectations that "the parties  comply with their discovery obligations . . . and  resolve any further disputes amicably without bringing them to the Court" (Order Re Discovery and Defendants' Motion to Strike, at 6 (ECF No.513)),
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:
1. The foregoing discovery will be completed by January 15, 2012; and
2. The parties will file a joint statement identifying any material issues of fact that 4 will require an evidentiary hearing by February 15, 2012.
DATED: May 9, 2011 By: David A. Senior McBREEN &SENIOR Richard P. Steinken JENNER & BLOCK John R. Grele LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. GRELE Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALBERT G. BROWN and MICHAEL A. MORALES DATED: May 9, 2011 By: *Michael Laurence Sara Cohbra HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER Attorneys for Plaintiffs MITCHELL SIMS and STEVIE FIELDS DATED: May 9, 2011 By: * Ajay S. Krishnan KEKER & VAN NEST LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE DATED: May 9, 2011 By: * MICHAEL J. QUINN Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants BROWN, CATE, AND CULLEN
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
*GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION
Per General Order 45, Section X.B. I hereby attest that the
concurrence in the
filing of this document has been obtained from all signatories.
David A. Senior
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.