Sanders, et al v. Ylst, et al

Filing 422

Further Scheduling of Tentative Order, signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/28/2022. Fifteen-Day Deadline. (Maldonado, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD L. SANDERS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15
16

v.

Case No. 1:92-cv-05471-JLT
DEATH PENALTY CASE
FURTHER SCHEDULING OF
TENTATIVE ORDER

RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of San
Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.

17
18

On November 7, 2022, the Court issued a tentative order regarding respondent’s

19 notification filed on September 26, 2022, that information protected from disclosure pursuant
20 to a 2007 Protective Order in this case had been released to representatives of the Kern
21 County District Attorney’s Office. (See Doc. 417.)
22

Petitioner timely responded to the tentative order, but he did so without the benefit of a

23 list of protected and unprotected documents released to district attorney representatives that
24 was subsequently provided by respondent. (See Docs. 418-420.) Petitioner requested that
25 respondent be ordered to provide an inventory of each and every document released to the
26 district attorney representatives, including Protected Information. (See Doc. 419.) Petitioner
27 further requested that the Court “postpone its decision regarding sanctions or other remedial
28 orders, including an order precluding the People of the State of California from proceeding
1

1 with a retrial of the penalty phase[,]” pending his reasonable opportunity to review of such an
2 inventory. (Id. at 4.)
3

Respondent timely replied to petitioner’s response. (See Doc. 420.) Respondent stated

4 that petitioner had been served with and possessed a list of the released documents, including
5 Protected Information. (Id.) Respondent requested that petitioner be directed to file any
6 amended response to the tentative order within a reasonable time. (Id.) Respondent further
7 requested that thereafter, the Tentative Order finding that sanctions are not warranted, be
8 finalized. (Id. citing Doc. 416; Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 826 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding
9 sufficient a sanction that returned parties to the status quo ante following inadvertent violation
10 of discovery protective order).)
11

The Court, having reviewed the parties’ filings, and the record, finds good cause to

12 provide further scheduling of the tentative order.
13

Accordingly, within fifteen (15) days of the service date of this order, petitioner may

14 file an amended response to the Court’s November 7, 2022 tentative order. Within fifteen
15 (15) days of the filing of petitioner’s amended response, if any is filed, respondent’s counsel
16 may file a reply thereto. If petitioner fails timely to file an amended response, then the
17 Court’s tentative ruling shall become its final ruling on the matter. Any filing by the parties
18 that discloses Protected Information shall be filed under seal.
19

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this order upon counsel for

20 petitioner, Nina Rivkind, and counsel for respondent, Supervising Deputy Attorney General
21 Kenneth Sokoler and Assistant Attorney General Lewis Martinez.
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 28, 2022

25
26
27
28

2