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)

Download PDF
S N 7 8 R NIA FO H ER LI LYNNE COFFIN State Bar No. 121389 38 Miller Ave., #328 Mill Valley, CA 94941 (415) 383-2432 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 (415) 348-9300 (telephone) (415) 348-0364 (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

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?