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)

Download PDF
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?