Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Michael Angelo Morales, Albert G. Brown v. Matthew Cate

November 3, 2011

MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES, ALBERT G. BROWN,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.
PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,
PLAINTIFF
v.
MATTHEW CATE, SECRETARY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

*E-Filed 11/3/11*

David A. Senior (# 108579) MCBREEN & SENIOR 2029 Century Park East, Third Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 552-5300 Fax: (310) 552-1205 4 dsenior@mcbreensenior.com John R. Grele (# 167080) LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. GRELE 149 Natoma Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 348-9300 Fax: (415) 348-0364 jgrele@earthlink.net Richard P. Steinken (admitted pro hac vice) JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Phone: 312-222-9350 Fax: 312-527-0484 rsteinken@jenner.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs ALBERT G. BROWN and MICHAEL A. MORALES

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY; [PROPOSED] ORDER; GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

and Pacific News Service and Defendants Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Warden (Acting) Michael Martel, San Quentin State Prison, and Governor Edmund G. Brown, submit the following joint 6 7 proposal for further scheduling in these consolidated actions:

Acting Warden Michael Martel at San Quentin State Prison determined that he 9 needed until October 17, 2011 to select a new execution team. Notice re: Selection of 10 New Execution Team and Alternates, Oct. 5, 2011, at 2 (ECF No. 529). A new execution 11 team has now been selected.

document requests propounded by Plaintiff Brown, initial responses to discovery 15 propounded by Pacific News Service, documents, a privilege log, and a supporting 16 declaration. On August 5, 2011 Defendants served additional documents and a privilege 17 log. Plaintiffs contend that the assertion of objections and privilege logs does not comply 18 19 with the Court's previous order for "[d]efendants to produce the requested documents and information and to answer the interrogatories." Order, Mar. 9, 2011, at 5 (ECF No. 513); 21 see also id. at 2 n.1 ("grant[ing] Plaintiffs the same relief they would seek with [] motions 22 to compel."). Defendants contend that the Court's order merely resolved their motion for 23 a protective order regarding the permissible scope of discovery, and disagree with responses fail to comply with this order. The Court further ordered the parties to "resolve 27 any further disputes amicably without bringing them to the Court." Id. at 6. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs Albert G. Brown, Stevie Fields, Michael A. Morales, Mitchell Sims,

On July 15, Defendants served supplemental responses to interrogatories and Plaintiffs' contention that the objections and privileges set forth in Defendants' discovery

November 7, 2011.

noticed that numerous attachments to emails have not been produced. Plaintiffs have 5 requested the immediate production of these documents. Plaintiffs also are awaiting 6 7 additional discovery responses concerning the new team's selection and training or changes to the execution team personnel. Defendants will notify Plaintiffs of the creation 9 of additional documents concerning the team's training (and produce such 10 documentation) and any changes to the team personnel in a timely manner as required by Rule 26(e), and in any event, within 14 days following the creation of the document or 12 13 the change to the team personnel, unless modified by agreement of the parties.

Defendants intend to request that Plaintiffs meet and confer with them, in an 15 effort by Defendants to obtain what Defendants view as responsive answers to written 16 discovery propounded by Defendants in February 2011 to Plaintiffs Morales, Brown, 17 Sims, and Fields, and to obtain production of responsive documents from Plaintiffs.

to the Court.

22 rolling basis, in order to, inter alia, identify witnesses for depositions. Depositions will 23 be scheduled upon the completion of this review, and upon completion of review of any 24 25 other documents and information to be produced by Defendants. At this point, Plaintiffs anticipate deposing witnesses with knowledge of the regulations and execution team 27 documents, document custodians, and present and former execution team managers and 28 participants. In this regard, Plaintiffs' counsel have conferred with Defendants' counsel and Defendants will ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.