Randolph v. MCDANIEL et al

Filing 103

ORDER granting ECF No. 101 Motion for Extension of Time. Respondents will have 14 days from the date of this order to file a supplement to their response to Court's September 30 order (ECF No. 98 ) (Supplement due by 2/15/22). Petitioner will then have 20 days to file their reply. (See PDF Order for specifics) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/1/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL)

Case 3:08-cv-00650-LRH-CLB Document 103 Filed 02/01/22 Page 1 of 3

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6
7
8

CHARLES LEE RANDOLPH,

Case No. 3:08-cv-00650-LRH-CLB
ORDER

Petitioner,
v.

9

WILLIAM GITTERE, et al.,

10

Respondents.

11
12
13

On September 30, 2021, in this capital habeas corpus action, brought by Charles

14

Lee Randolph, represented by court-appointed counsel, the Court set a schedule for the

15

parties to provide supplemental briefing regarding a motion by Randolph seeking

16

disclosure of certain materials by the respondents. See Petitioner’s Motion (ECF No.

17

89); Order entered September 30, 2021 (ECF No. 98). The Court’s order included a

18

provision directing the parties to jointly create a spreadsheet showing which of the

19

materials requested by Randolph are available, and briefly stating the parties’ positions

20

with respect to the materials. See Order entered September 30, 2021 (ECF No. 98).

21

On October 29, 2021, Randolph filed his supplement in support of his motion for

22

disclosure, as ordered in the September 30 order (ECF No. 99). Respondents filed their

23

response on December 28, 2021 (ECF No. 100). Randolph was then due to file a reply

24

by January 18, 2022. See Order entered September 30, 2021 (ECF No. 98).

25

On January 14, 2022, Randolph filed a motion for extension of time (ECF No.

26

101). In that motion, Randolph contends that Respondents’ response does not comply

27

with the Court’s September 30 order, and he requests that the time for his reply be

28
1

Case 3:08-cv-00650-LRH-CLB Document 103 Filed 02/01/22 Page 2 of 3

1

extended to twenty days after Respondents comply. Randolph did not respond to the

2

motion for extension of time.

3

The Court has reviewed the supplemental briefing so far filed. With respect to

4

materials in the possession of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“Metro”),

5

Respondents stated in their December 28 response:

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Respondents received a late response from Metro concerning the
Court’s order at ECF No. 98. Counsel for Respondents learned that Metro
has an indexed binder, which has not yet been provided.
Counsel for Metro has forwarded a list of the reports that Metro has
available. That list is attached as Exhibit #2. The delay in forwarding the
binder index to Counsel is due to the fact that Counsel for Metro was out
of the office due to COVID during a period of the time the Court provided
for Respondents to compile the information. Since Metro’s Counsel was
quarantined, he was unable to access the binder.
[Footnote: Should the Court request a declaration from Metro’s
counsel, Respondents will obtain a declaration upon request from the
Court. Per Metro, the tapes (if available) would also be in the vault and
would not be available to be turned over, as they are evidence.]
Respondents’ Counsel discussed this matter with Randolph’s
Counsel and will supplement to Randolph’s counsel any addition items
received.

16

Response to Court’s Order (ECF No. 100), p. 2. Respondents have not fully completed

17

their portion of the joint spreadsheet; most glaringly, it appears that Respondents did

18

not include on the spreadsheet the information referred to in the part of their response

19

quoted above—that is, the materials referred to in Metro’s indexed binder and the

20

materials referred to in the list of reports provided by Metro. Respondents will be given

21

an opportunity to supplement their response, including the joint spreadsheet, before

22

Randolph is required to file his reply.

23

The Court will, therefore, grant Randolph’s motion for extension of time, and will

24

set a schedule for Respondents to file a supplemental response, including a fully

25

completed joint spreadsheet, and for Randolph to file his reply. The Court will not further

26

extend this briefing schedule. In his reply, Randolph should include any argument that

27

Respondents have not complied with the September 30 order (ECF No. 98), and the

28

Court will take any such argument into account in ruling on his motion (ECF No. 89).
2

Case 3:08-cv-00650-LRH-CLB Document 103 Filed 02/01/22 Page 3 of 3

1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time

2

(ECF No. 101) is GRANTED. Respondents will have 14 days from the date of this order

3

to file a supplement to their response to Court’s September 30 order (ECF No. 98), as

4

described above. Petitioner will then have 20 days to file their reply.

5
6

DATED THIS 1st day of February, 2022.

7
8
9

LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3