Lenart v. Ornoski

Filing 138

ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 11/19/2013 ORDERING 129 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Waggoner, D)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS HOWARD LENART, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:05-cv-01912-MCE-CKD v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner Thomas Howard Lenart (“Petitioner”) seeks reconsideration of the 17 18 magistrate judge’s order (“Order”), ECF No. 127, granting in part Respondent’s motion 19 for discovery, ECF No. 121. For the following reasons, Petitioner’s Motion for 20 Reconsideration (“Motion”), ECF No. 129, is DENIED. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 1 BACKGROUND 2 3 In 2008, this Court stayed Petitioner’s federal habeas proceedings in this death 4 penalty case pending resolution of the state court proceedings. On June 7, 2013, the 5 magistrate judge lifted the stay for the limited purpose of granting Petitioner’s motion to 6 perpetuate testimony because Petitioner had demonstrated that certain witnesses, due 7 to their age, might soon become unavailable, and those witnesses’ expected testimony 8 was “material to [Petitioner’s] claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and his claim 9 that his death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.” Order Lifting Stay 1-2, June 7, 10 2013, ECF No. 120. After the magistrate judge granted Petitioner’s motion to perpetuate 11 testimony, Respondent filed a motion for discovery contending that a number of 12 materials sought are necessary to cross-examine those witnesses at their depositions. 13 After full briefing and a hearing on the matter, the magistrate judge granted in part 14 Respondent’s motion for discovery and directed Petitioner to file a proposed protective 15 order addressing any privilege issues. Petitioner instead filed the instant Motion. This 16 Court heard oral argument on that Motion on November 14, 2013. 17 18 ANALYSIS 19 Pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 72-303(f), Petitioner is 20 21 entitled to reconsideration if the magistrate judge’s decision is either “clearly erroneous 22 or contrary to law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Petitioner has not shown he is 23 entitled to such relief here. 24 Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides, “[a] judge may, 25 for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 27 6, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254. 28 /// 2 1 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6(a) recognize that the Rule “contains very little 2 specificity as to what types and methods of discovery should be available to the parties 3 in a habeas petition.” Id. at Advisory Committee Notes. The Notes further explain that 4 the purpose of Rule 6(a) “is to get some experience in how discovery would work in 5 actual practice by letting district court judges fashion their own rules in the context of 6 individual cases.” Id. 7 In this case, the magistrate judge explained “that the equities weigh in favor of 8 permitting full cross-examination so that, if necessary, the preserved testimony of these 9 witnesses may be considered by this court.” Order at 2. After explicitly finding that 10 “Respondent has shown good cause,” the magistrate judge authorized discovery under 11 Rule 6(a) and noted that “[P]etitioner provides no authority precluding the court from 12 permitting the discovery requested.” Id. at 1, 2. Indeed, Petitioner conceded during oral 13 argument “that there’s nothing in the rules that says it’s impermissible.” Hr’g Tr. 12, Aug. 14 26, 2013, ECF No. 128. 15 Given the absence of authority precluding the magistrate judge from granting 16 discovery, and given Rule 6(a)’s stated goal of permitting district court judges to fashion 17 the applicable rules to the context of each particular case, this Court finds that the 18 magistrate judge’s ruling is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Petitioner has 19 therefore failed to demonstrate he is entitled to reconsideration. 20 21 CONCLUSION 22 23 Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 129) is DENIED. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: November 19, 2013 26 27 28 3

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?