Clark v. Ayers

Filing 528

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY AND EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION re 527 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Richard Dean Clark. Signed by Chief Judge James Ware on August 22, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)

S

N

7
8

R NIA
FO

H

ER

LI

LYNNE COFFIN
State Bar No. 121389
38 Miller Ave., #328
Mill Valley, CA 94941
[phone]

RT

6

re

mes Wa
Judge Ja

NO

4
5

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

A

3

UNIT
ED

2

JOHN R. GRELE
State Bar No. 167080
149 Natoma, St, third
San Francisco, California 94105
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (fax)

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

Attorneys for Petitioner
RICHARD DEAN CLARK

9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN JOSE DIVISION

14
RICHARD DEAN CLARK,
15
Petitioner,
16
vs.
17
18
19

MICHAEL MARTEL, ActingWarden of
California State Prison at San Quentin,
California,

20
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C-97-20618-JW

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR
ORDER RE DISCOVERY AND
EVIDENTIARY SUBMISSION

DEATH PENALTY CASE

21
Pursuant to the party's previous submission, discovery was to be completed and an evidentiary
22
hearing motion filed by July 22, 2012.
23
However, it was not possible to submit the materials by that date. Petitioner's counsel has been
24
involved in lethal injection litigation in three courts. This litigation was precipitated by a private party
25
and the Los Angeles District Attorney who has sought execution dates despite a state court injunction
26
preventing executions at present. The briefing in those matters was not completed until the hearing on
27
July 13, 2012. At that hearing, the superior court continued matters to September 10, 2012.
28
Several of the deposition transcripts had not been provided to counsel. The last deposition

Stipulation and Order
No. C-97-20618-JW

1

transcript did not arrive in counsel’s office until July 20, 2012.

2

Petitioner's counsel incurred some unforeseen health difficulties that required a reduced work

3

schedule, and diagnostic procedures. Counsel was able to file the briefing on August 1, 2012 and the

4

exhibits, previously filed in hard copy, were filed electronically shortly thereafter. Some exhibits

5

remain extant because the scanning that was done did not reduce the size of the file sufficiently to

6

permit PACER filing, and will have to be re-scanned. Petitioner requests the brief be deemed timely

7

filed. Respondent has no objection.

8

Respondent’s counsel has reviewed the briefing and requests additional time in which to

9

complete the responsive briefing, given the length of the Motion and the difficulties in filing the

10

exhibits. Respondent’s counsel requests until October 1, 2012. Petitioner’s counsel agrees to this

11

request.

12
Dated: August 14, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

13
JOHN R GRELE
LYNNE S. COFFIN
Attorneys for Petitioner
RICHARD DEAN CLARK

14
15
16

By:_____/s/___________________
John R Grele

17
18
19

Dated: August 14, 2012

ALICE LUSTRE
Attorney for Respondent

20

By:______/s___________________
Alice Lustre

21
22
23

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 22, 2012

____________________________
JAMES WARE
United States Chief District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

Stipulation and Order
No. C-97-20618-JW

2