MARK ROGERS V. E.K. MCDANIEL, ET AL.
Filing
222
ORDER that ECF No. 221 Stipulation to Continue Evidentiary Hearing is APPROVED. Roger's Pre-Hearing brief due by 8/8/2018. Respondents' response due by 8/22/2018. Reply brief due by 8/29/2018. Witness and Exh ibit List due by 9/7/2018. Pre-Hearing Motions due by 9/14/2018. Evidentiary Hearing continued to 10/22/2018 at 1:00 PM in LV Courtroom 7D before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
9
10
MARK ROGERS,
Case No. 3:02-cv-00342-GMN-VPC
Petitioner,
ORDER
v.
11
12
13
TIMOTHY FILSON, et al.,
Respondents.
14
15
In this habeas corpus action, the Court has granted the petitioner, Mark Rogers,
16
an evidentiary hearing with respect to Ground 5 of Rogers’ second amended habeas
17
petition. See Order entered November 6, 2017 (ECF No. 215); Order entered November
18
28, 2017 (ECF No. 217). The evidentiary hearing was scheduled to commence on June
19
25, 2018. See Order entered November 28, 2017 (ECF No. 217).
20
On March 6, 2018, the Court held a status conference, at which the parties and
21
the Court discussed the possibility of rescheduling the evidentiary hearing to commence
22
on October 22, 2018. See Minutes of Proceedings, March 6, 2018 (ECF No. 220). On
23
March 13, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation, agreeing to reschedule the evidentiary
24
hearing to commence on October 22, 2018 (ECF No. 221). Good cause appearing,
25
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the stipulation of the parties filed on March 13,
26
2018 (ECF No. 221) is APPROVED. The schedule for the evidentiary hearing regarding
27
Ground 5 of petitioner’s second amended habeas petition is amended as follows. The
28
following schedule will govern the evidentiary hearing:
1
1
The Evidentiary Hearing
2
The evidentiary hearing will commence on October 22, 2018, at 1:00 p.m., in the
3
courtroom of the undersigned United States District Judge.
4
First Disclosure of Experts
5
The parties represent that they have completed their first disclosure of experts.
6
Second Disclosure of Experts
7
The parties will disclose to each other the names of any rebuttal experts by July
8
17, 2018. Such disclosure will be made by e-mail or other informal means. The parties
9
need not file formal notices.
10
Disclosure of Expert Reports
11
The parties will disclose to each other the reports of their expert witnesses by July
12
24, 2018. Such disclosure will be made by e-mail or other informal means. The parties
13
need not file the reports.
14
Pre-Hearing Briefs
15
Rogers will submit a pre-hearing brief by August 8, 2018. Respondents will file a
16
responsive pre-hearing brief by August 22, 2018. Rogers may file a reply to respondents’
17
brief by August 29, 2018.
18
Witness List and Exhibit List
19
The parties will file witness lists and exhibit lists no later than September 7, 2018.
20
The parties will file a joint exhibit list, listing the exhibits they agree are admissible. The
21
parties will file separate exhibit lists, listing any exhibits that the parties do not agree are
22
admissible.
23
Pre-Hearing Motions
24
The parties will file any pre-hearing motions by September 14, 2018. The schedule
25
for the briefing of such motions will be pursuant to LR 7-2(b).
26
Marking and Submission of Exhibits
27
The parties are to contact Aaron Blazevich, at 702-464-5421, no less than five
28
calendar days before the evidentiary hearing, to arrange to mark and submit exhibits.
2
1
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for March 20,
2018, at 10:30 a.m., is VACATED.
3
4
14
March
DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2018.
5
6
7
GLORIA M. NAVARRO
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?