Pacific News Service v. Tilton

Filing 124

STIPULATION AND ORDER SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/3/11. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2011)

*E-Filed 11/3/11*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

David A. Senior (# 108579)
MCBREEN & SENIOR
2029 Century Park East, Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
John R. Grele (# 167080)
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. GRELE
149 Natoma Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Richard P. Steinken (admitted pro hac vice)
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALBERT G. BROWN and
MICHAEL A. MORALES

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

CASE NO. C 06 0219 RS
C 06 0926 RS

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR
COMPLETING DISCOVERY;
[PROPOSED] ORDER;
GENERAL ORDER 45 ATTESTATION

CASE NO. C 06 01793 RS

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY

1
2
3
4

PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY
Plaintiffs Albert G. Brown, Stevie Fields, Michael A. Morales, Mitchell Sims,
and Pacific News Service and Defendants Matthew Cate, Secretary of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Warden (Acting) Michael Martel, San

5
6
7

Quentin State Prison, and Governor Edmund G. Brown, submit the following joint
proposal for further scheduling in these consolidated actions:

8

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
12
13

team has now been selected.
On July 15, Defendants served supplemental responses to interrogatories and

14

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
18

log. Plaintiffs contend that the assertion of objections and privilege logs does not comply

19

with the Court’s previous order for “[d]efendants to produce the requested documents and

20

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
24

a protective order regarding the permissible scope of discovery, and disagree with

25

Plaintiffs’ contention that the objections and privileges set forth in Defendants' discovery

26

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

28

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY
2

1

and Defendants will meet and confer to attempt to resolve this dispute during the week of

2

November 7, 2011.

3
4

Upon review of the email documents produced by Defendants, Plaintiffs have
noticed that numerous attachments to emails have not been produced. Plaintiffs have

5
6

requested the immediate production of these documents. Plaintiffs also are awaiting

7

additional discovery responses concerning the new team’s selection and training or

8

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

11
12
13
14
15
16

Rule 26(e), and in any event, within 14 days following the creation of the document or
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
effort by Defendants to obtain what Defendants view as responsive answers to written
discovery propounded by Defendants in February 2011 to Plaintiffs Morales, Brown,

17
18

Sims, and Fields, and to obtain production of responsive documents from Plaintiffs.

19

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

20

to the Court.

21
22

Plaintiffs have begun to review the documents and information received on a
rolling basis, in order to, inter alia, identify witnesses for depositions. Depositions will

23
24

be scheduled upon the completion of this review, and upon completion of review of any

25

other documents and information to be produced by Defendants. At this point, Plaintiffs

26

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

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY
3

1

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

2

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.

5
6

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

7

objection, or instruction to a witness that cannot be resolved by conferring in good faith,

8

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
12
13
14
15
16

matter. Counsel will advise the Court of the deposition schedule via e-mail to Mr.
Kolombatovich when the depositions are set.
Based upon counsel for Plaintiffs’ review of certain documentation produced by
Defendants to date, Plaintiffs believe that it may be incomplete. Plaintiffs believe that
these issues can be clarified during depositions. If the production of such records is in

17
18

fact incomplete, additional time will be required for Defendants to make complete

19

productions, for Plaintiffs’ counsel to review the records, and for the parties to complete

20

the depositions.

21
22

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
24

depositions, Plaintiffs will supplement their responses to Defendants’ contention

25

interrogatories in a timely manner, and in any event within 14 days, unless modified by

26

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.

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY
4

1

In light of this stipulated discovery schedule which has been carefully considered

2

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
6

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

7

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

8

1.

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

9

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
12

DATED: November 2, 2011

By:

13

Richard P. Steinken
JENNER & BLOCK

14
15

John R. Grele
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN R. GRELE
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALBERT G. BROWN and
MICHAEL A. MORALES

16
17
18
19

/s/
David A. Senior
McBREEN &SENIOR

DATED: November 2, 2011

20
21
22

By:

/s/*
Michael Laurence
Sara Cohbra
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MITCHELL SIMS and STEVIE FIELDS

23
24

//
//

25
26
27
28

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY
5

1

DATED: November 2, 2011

By:

/s/ *
Ajay S. Krishnan
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE

DATED: November 2, 2011

By:

/s/ Michael J. Quinn*
MICHAEL J. QUINN
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
BROWN, CATE, AND MARTEL

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
DATED: November ___, 2011

________________________________
Honorable Richard Seeborg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETING DISCOVERY
6