Cox v. Ylst
Filing
157
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 5/28/15 ORDERING that Petitioners March 13, 2015 Motion to Perpetuate the Testimony of Dr. Albert Globus (ECF No. 143 ) is GRANTED. Petitioners April 15, 2015 Motion to Introduce Declaratio ns in Lieu of Testimony and/or to Perpetuate Testimony (ECF No. 146 ) is GRANTED with respect to witnesses Marjorie Comer, Joanne Wells, Shirley Garrett, Timothy Jayne, Fairman Jayne, and David Kurtzman. The motion is DENIED with respect to witness Marijo Giardina. Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the method for taking the testimony of these witnesses. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL A. COX,
12
13
14
15
Petitioner,
No. 2:04-CV-0065 MCE CKD
DEATH PENALTY CASE
v.
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,
ORDER
Respondent.
16
17
On May 27, 2015, the undersigned heard argument on petitioner’s motions to perpetuate
18
the testimony of five social history witnesses, two jurors, and trial expert Dr. Albert Globus.
19
(ECF Nos. 143, 146.) Lissa Gardner and Lindsay Bennett appeared for petitioner. Todd Marshall
20
appeared for respondent. After considering the parties’ briefs and the arguments of counsel, the
21
court finds and orders as follows.
22
A court may permit the preservation of testimony by deposition upon a showing that the
23
testimony is material to a party’s claims and there is a risk that the testimony may be permanently
24
lost if the party is required to wait through the normal course of litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
25
27(a); Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1371, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1995)
26
(permitting deposition of elderly witnesses to preserve testimony). Petitioner demonstrates that
27
the witnesses’ expected testimony is material to his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
28
and/or juror misconduct and is not cumulative of other possible testimony. Cf. In re Bay County
1
1
Middlegrounds Landfill Site, 171 F.3d 1044, 1046-47 (6th Cir. 1999) (“Evidence that throws a
2
different, greater, or additional light on a key issue might well ‘prevent a failure or delay of
3
justice.’”). With respect to all witnesses except Ms. Giardina, petitioner also demonstrates that
4
their testimony may become unavailable if it is not obtained soon. See Penn Mutual, 68 F.3d at
5
1375.
6
Respondent has not established that permitting the perpetuation of testimony at this stage
7
of the proceedings is inappropriate. Cf. Cullen v. Pinholster, 118 S. Ct. 1388, 1411 n. 20 (“[W]e
8
need not decide . . . whether a district court may ever choose to hold an evidentiary hearing before
9
it determines that § 2254(d) has been satisfied.”) Nor has respondent established that resolution
10
of the merits of petitioner’s claims or their procedural issues is a necessary precursor to
11
permitting the perpetuation of testimony. Finally, it should be noted that by permitting the
12
perpetuation of testimony at this point, this court is making no decision about the admissibility of
13
each witnesses’ testimony in any evidentiary proceeding.
14
Accordingly, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
15
1. Petitioner’s March 13, 2015 Motion to Perpetuate the Testimony of Dr. Albert Globus
16
(ECF No. 143) is granted.
17
2. Petitioner’s April 15, 2015 Motion to Introduce Declarations in Lieu of Testimony
18
and/or to Perpetuate Testimony (ECF No. 146) is granted with respect to witnesses
19
Marjorie Comer, Joanne Wells, Shirley Garrett, Timothy Jayne, Fairman Jayne, and
20
David Kurtzman. The motion is denied with respect to witness Marijo Giardina.
21
Within thirty days of the filed date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer
22
regarding the method for taking the testimony of these witnesses.
23
Dated: May 28, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
cox mtn to perp.or
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?