Mark A. Hanson VS Craig Farwell, et al.

Filing 132

ORDER granting ECF NO. 131 Motion for reconsideration : Evidentiary Hearing set for 1/16/2018 at 9:00 AM in Reno Courtroom 5 before Judge Miranda M. Du. (See pdf order for additional deadlines and specifics.) Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/19/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 MARK A. HANSON, 10 11 12 13 Case No. 3:04-cv-00130-MMD-VPC Petitioner, ORDER v. CRAIG FARWELL, et al., Respondents. 14 15 In this habeas corpus action, on June 6, 2017, the Court granted petitioner Mark 16 A. Hanson’s motion for an evidentiary hearing. (See Order entered June 6, 2017 (ECF 17 No. 127).) On June 26, 2017, pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties filed a Joint 18 Proposed Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 128.) 19 Also on June 26, 2017, Hanson timely filed a fourth amended habeas petition. 20 (ECF No. 129.) Respondents are to file an answer no later than July 26, 2017, and then 21 Hanson will have twenty (20) days to file a reply. (See Order entered June 6, 2017 (ECF 22 No. 127) (thirty days for answer, and twenty days for reply).) 23 On June 30, 2017, the Court entered an order setting a schedule for the evidentiary 24 hearing. (ECF No. 130.) In that order the Court set the evidentiary hearing for December 25 13 and 14, 2017, and set a schedule for events leading up to the evidentiary hearing. 26 (See Order entered June 30, 2017 (ECF No. 130).) 27 28 On July 12, 2017, Hanson filed an unopposed motion for reconsideration of the June 30, 2017, order. (ECF No. 131.) 1 The Court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or 2 modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient,” so long as the court 3 has jurisdiction. City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 4 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis and quotation omitted). 5 Hanson requests reconsideration of the dates on which the evidentiary hearing is 6 set, as well as the amount of time reserved for the evidentiary hearing. Hanson states 7 that an expert witness, Dr. Janice Ophoven, is not available to testify in December, and 8 that Dr. Ophoven’s testimony is critical and essential, as Dr. Ophoven participated in his 9 state-court litigation and presented a declaration in that case. Hanson informs the Court 10 that the earliest dates on which Dr. Ophoven is available to testify are January 16 through 11 18, 2018. In light of Hanson’s unopposed representations in this regard, the Court will 12 reschedule the evidentiary hearing for January 16 through 18, 2018. 13 Hanson also states that his counsel and counsel for the respondents agree that at 14 least three days should be scheduled for this evidentiary hearing. The Court will make 15 that change as well; three days — January 16, 17, and 18, 2018 — will be scheduled for 16 the evidentiary hearing. In view of these changes, the Court will also modify the schedule leading up to the 17 18 evidentiary hearing. The schedule for the evidentiary hearing will be as follows: 19 1. Evidentiary Hearing 20 The evidentiary hearing will commence on January 16, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in the 21 courtroom of the undersigned United States District Judge, in Reno, Nevada. The Court 22 has scheduled three days — January 16, 17, and 18, 2018 — for the evidentiary hearing. 23 2. First Disclosure of Experts 24 The parties will disclose to each other the names of their expert witnesses by 25 September 15, 2017. These disclosures may be made by e-mail or other informal means. 26 The parties need not file these disclosures. 27 /// 28 /// 2 1 3. Second Disclosure of Experts 2 The parties will disclose to each other the names of any rebuttal experts by October 3 6, 2017. These disclosures may be made by e-mail or other informal means. The parties 4 need not file these disclosures. 5 4. 6 The parties will disclose to each other the reports of their expert witnesses by 7 November 3, 2017. These disclosures may be made by e-mail or other informal means. 8 The parties need not file these disclosures. 5. 9 Disclosure of Expert Reports Witness Lists and Exhibit Lists 10 The parties will file their witness lists and exhibit lists by November 9, 2017. The 11 parties will file a joint exhibit list, listing the exhibits they agree are admissible. The parties 12 will file separate exhibit lists, listing any exhibits that the parties do not agree are 13 admissible. 14 6. Pre-Hearing Briefs 15 Hanson will file a pre-hearing brief by November 17, 2017. Respondents will file a 16 responsive pre-hearing brief by December 1, 2017. Hanson may file a reply, no later than 17 December 8, 2017. 18 7. Pre-Hearing Motions 19 The parties will file any pre-hearing motions by November 17, 2017, and early 20 enough so that the motions can be briefed and resolved without postponing the 21 evidentiary hearing or otherwise undermining this schedule in any way. The schedule for 22 the briefing of such motions will be pursuant to LR 7-2(b). 23 8. Marking and Submission of Exhibits 24 In marking exhibits, petitioner should use numerals 1-499 and respondents should 25 use numerals 500 and above. Counsel are to provide the Court with a courtesy copy of 26 all exhibits to be offered at the evidentiary hearing by delivering a thumb drive or CD to 27 the Clerk’s Office in Reno no later than two court days prior to the hearing. Counsel should 28 /// 3 1 contact Peggie Vannozzi, at 775-686-5839, if they have any question regarding marking 2 and submitting exhibits. 3 It is, therefore, ordered that petitioner’s unopposed motion for reconsideration 4 (ECF No. 131) is granted. The schedule for the evidentiary hearing will be as set forth 5 above. 6 DATED THIS 19th day of July 2017. 7 8 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?