Holmes v. Miller

Filing 74

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/3/2016 ORDERING, within 7 days, the parties shall meet an confer and shall file a proposed protective order to be issued by the court in connection with discovery in this case.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESSICA HOLMES,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-2710 JKS KJN P (TEMP)

Petitioner,
ORDER

v.
DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a petition for a writ of

18

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An evidentiary hearing is set in this matter on

19

August 22, 2016, on petitioner’s claim that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during

20

the plea bargain process. On March 30, 2016, this court issued an order which, among other

21

things, set a status conference and proposed a protective order to be issued in connection with the

22

production of discovery in this case. The parties were advised to be prepared at the status

23

conference to discuss changes, if any, to the language of the court’s proposed protective order.

24

The status hearing was later taken off calendar on the court’s own motion.

25

On May 19, 2016, petitioner filed a “request for protective order.” Therein, she requests

26

that the court issue a protective order with respect to documents in her trial counsel’s file before

27

she turns those documents over to respondent in discovery. Petitioner has attached a proposed

28

protective order of her own. Previously in this case, respondent’s counsel objected to the
1

1

language of petitioner’s proposed protective order. Good cause appearing, the parties will be

2

ordered to meet and confer on the language of a protective order to be issued in this case.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, within seven days from the filed date of this order,

4

the parties shall meet and confer and shall file a proposed protective order to be issued by the

5

court in connection with discovery in this case. If the parties are unable to agree on the language

6

of a protective order, they shall file a stipulation with this court in which they address each line

7

of the court’s proposed protective order and explain, with legal and factual citations, why they

8

object to the language of the court’s proposed order.

9

Dated: June 3, 2016

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2