Sawyer v. Baker et al

Filing 47

ORDERED the motion to quash subpoena, filed by Stephen M. Hess, Esq. (ECF No. 39 ) is granted. Respondents' motion for clarification (ECF No. 42 ) is denied. The unopposed motion to extend time to complete discovery (ECF No. 40 ) is granted. Discovery must be completed by 12/16/2019. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/17/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6

AIRELL JOSHUA THOMAS SAWYER,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00627-MMD-WGC

Petitioner,

7

ORDER

v.
8
WARDEN BAKER, et al.,
9
Respondents.
10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

Three motions are before the Court: (1) a motion to quash subpoena, filed by

13

Stephen M. Hess, Esq (ECF No. 39); (2) Respondents’ motion for clarification (ECF No.

14

42); and (3) Petitioner’s unopposed motion for extension of time in which to complete

15

discovery (first request) (ECF No. 40). The Court will grant the motions to quash and for

16

extension of time, 1 but deny the motion for clarification.

17

II.

DISCUSSION

18

A.

MOTION TO QUASH (ECF NO. 39)

19

Among the matters on which the Court granted Petitioner leave to conduct

20

discovery was to find records from his original plea counsel, Bruce Voorhees. Petitioner

21

thus served a subpoena upon Hess. Hess states that he had rented out office space to

22

Voorhees. Hess also states that Voorhees retired around 4 years ago and took all his work

23

product when he left. Hess notes that Hess & Associates, his law firm, does not have

24

custody of any of Voorhees’ work product. (ECF No. 39 at 1–2.)

25

Technically, Petitioner is correct that a motion to quash a subpoena is not the

26

correct method for Hess to make this response. Petitioner argues that the correct method

27

would be a response to the subpoena, signed under oath. However, Hess has stated that

28

///
1The

Court does not further discuss the motion for extension of time.

1

he does not have any of Voorhees’ work product. Furthermore, Hess is an attorney

2

admitted to practice in this court. The court will accept Hess’ representation and grant his

3

motion. If Petitioner later finds evidence to the contrary, then he can file the appropriate

4

motion.

5

B.

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION (ECF NO. 42)

6

The Court granted Petitioner leave to conduct depositions of Stephen Tully and

7

Bryan (possibly “Brian”) Tully (collectively, “the Tullys”). Respondents have asked for

8

clarification as to what protections both would have against possibly incriminating

9

themselves.

10

First, a deposition is not a custodial police interrogation within the meaning of

11

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). See United States v. White, 589 F.3d 1283,

12

1285 (5th Cir. 1979). Consequently, the Tullys need not receive the warnings required by

13

Miranda. The Tullys also do not have the right to appointed counsel afforded by Miranda.

14

Second, Miranda aside, the Tullys may invoke their Fifth Amendment privileges

15

against self-incrimination. The Advisory Committee note to Rule 6 of the Rules Governing

16

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts specifically contemplates that a

17

petitioner being deposed may invoke the Fifth Amendment. There is no reason why the

18

Tullys cannot do the same. However, unlike Miranda, when interrogation must cease if the

19

person invokes his right to remain silent, the deposition need not cease if the Tullys invoke

20

the Fifth Amendment not to answer a question.

21

Third, Miranda aside, the Tullys do have the right to bring counsel to the

22

depositions. Regarding whether one of them might wish to have counsel but otherwise is

23

unable to afford counsel, the court will not speculate now.

24

Petitioner does not object to placing in either the notices of deposition or deposition

25

subpoenas statements informing the Tullys of their rights to bring an attorney to their

26

depositions and their rights to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to potentially

27

incriminating questions. The Court directs Petitioner to do so.

28

///
2

1

The Court denies the motion for clarification because, other than directing Petitioner

2

to put the above statements in their notices or subpoenas, the Court has not modified its

3

order allowing discovery.

4

III.

5
6
7
8

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that the motion to quash subpoena, filed by Stephen M. Hess,

Esq. (ECF No. 39) is granted.
It is further ordered that Respondents’ motion for clarification (ECF No. 42) is
denied.

9

It is further ordered that the unopposed motion for extension of time in which to

10

complete discovery (first request) (ECF No. 40) is granted. Discovery must be completed

11

within 90 days from the date of entry of this order.

12

DATED THIS 17th day of September 2019.

13
14

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3