Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


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 meet and confer to attempt to resolve this dispute during the week of Upon review of the email documents produced by Defendants, Plaintiffs have

Defendants will attempt to amicably resolve all discovery disputes without bringing them

Plaintiffs have begun to review the documents and information received on a

of and understand that counsel have other professional obligations, including trials, that 3 previously have been calendared. The parties will work together to schedule depositions 4 on dates certain when the witnesses and counsel are available. L.R. 30-1.

objection, or instruction to a witness that cannot be resolved by conferring in good faith, counsel will contact Judge Seeborg's chambers pursuant to Local Rule 37-1(b) to ask if 9 the Court is available to address the problem through a telephone conference during the 10 deposition, or whether counsel can be directed to a Magistrate Judge to resolve the 11 matter. Counsel will advise the Court of the deposition schedule via e-mail to Mr.

Based upon counsel for Plaintiffs' review of certain documentation produced by

Defendants to date, Plaintiffs believe that it may be incomplete. Plaintiffs believe that 16 these issues can be clarified during depositions. If the production of such records is in 17 fact incomplete, additional time will be required for Defendants to make complete 18 19 productions, for Plaintiffs' counsel to review the records, and for the parties to complete the depositions. 21

generally about the scheduling of the depositions (see L.R. 30-1), and counsel are aware

If a dispute arises during a deposition regarding a party's assertion of a privilege,

Kolombatovich when the depositions are set.

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 23 depositions, Plaintiffs will supplement their responses to Defendants' contention 24 25 interrogatories in a timely manner, and in any event within 14 days, unless modified by agreement of the parties. After the foregoing discovery has been completed, the parties 27 will identify expert information as required by Rule 26(a)(2), and present their experts for 28 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 3 that "the parties [] comply with their discovery obligations . . . and [] resolve any further 4 disputes amicably without bringing them to the Court" (Order Re Discovery and 5

Defendants' Motion to Strike, at 6 (ECF No.513)), 6 7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

1. The foregoing discovery will be completed by August 15, 2012; and

2. The parties will file a joint statement identifying any material issues of fact that 10 will require an evidentiary hearing by September 15, 2012. 11

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111103

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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