Robb v. Ishee

Filing 140

OPINION AND ORDER Modifying Protective Order. Signed by Judge Algenon L. Marbley on 3/26/2012. (cw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JASON ROBB,
Petitioner,
v.
TODD ISHEE, Warden,

Case No. 2:02-cv-535
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Robb, a prisoner sentenced to death by the State of Ohio, has pending before
this Court a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter came before the
Court for a status conference on Thursday, March 15, 2012, following a consolidation of the
instant case with those of Inmate-Petitioner Siddique Abdullah Hasan, f.k.a. Carlos Sanders
(“Hasan”), and Inmate-Petitioner James Were, n.k.a. Namir Abdul Mateen (“Were”), for the
limited purpose of discovery management. The Court orders the following pursuant to that
conference.
Protective Order. Due to the sensitive nature of the documents and materials that are
being produced during discovery, this Court issued a Stipulation and Protective Order on
December 2, 2005, binding all counsel for Petitioner Robb and the Respondent-Warden. (ECF
No. 53.) On February 13, 2008, the Court modified the protective order to add counsel for Were.
(ECF No. 104.) The Court now hereby modifies the protective order (ECF No. 53) again to add
all counsel for Hasan.
Procedure. These cases have been consolidated with Robb solely for the limited purpose
of discovery management. Accordingly, this Court will not issue rulings on substantive
discovery requests for either Hasan or Were; the decision of whether or to what extent Hasan and
Were are entitled to conduct discovery remains the sole province of the District Judges to whom

those cases have been assigned: Judge Dlott in Hasan (Case No. 1:03-cv-288) and Judge Watson
in Were (1:10-cv-698). Judge Dlott has already issued an order entitling Hasan to conduct
considerable discovery. Should Hasan see a need to request additional discovery or to modify
the existing discovery order, he should address that motion to Judge Dlott. Were has not yet
filed any formal motions for discovery. If and when Were seeks to file a motion for leave to
conduct his own discovery, he should address that motion to Judge Watson.
Any motions, requests, or notifications of a procedural nature concerning the facilitating
and furnishing of discovery should be addressed to this Court, filed in this case (Robb) and
captioned under this case number (Case No. 2:02-cv-535). Should Hasan or Were file any such
motions, requests, or notifications, they should also provide notice to the District Judge to whom
their case has been assigned. When this Court receives any such motions, requests, or
notifications on behalf of Hasan or Were, it will determine at the outset whether the pleading
contains a request of a substantive nature. If the Court answers that query in the positive, it will
transfer the request to the respective District Judge to whom the habeas corpus case has been
assigned.
During the conference, an initial production schedule was agreed upon as follows.
Within one week, counsel for Robb will produce to counsel for Hasan all documents and disks
that Respondent has already produced to Robb. At some point after counsel for Hasan have
reviewed those materials, Hasan’s counsel will make arrangements with Respondent’s counsel to
visit the warehouse in which the Ohio State Highway Patrol (“OSHP”) maintains all materials
connected to the Lucasville riot prosecutions to obtain any additional materials within the scope
of Judge Dlott’s discovery order. Counsel for Were are permitted to join Hasan’s counsel for
any such visit(s).
Future Conferences. Although the Court does not seek to micro manage discovery and
respects that the volume of materials involved dictates that it may require a lengthy amount of
time to complete discovery, the Court does intend to ensure that discovery proceeds without
2

undue delay. Accordingly, the Court will schedule another discovery status conference six (6)
months from the date of this order to ascertain from the parties where the discovery process
stands. The Court will then conduct status conferences every six (6) months after that as needed.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to file this order not only in this case (Case No. 2:02-cv535), but also in Case No. 1:03-cv-288 and Case No. 1:10-cv-698.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Algenon L. Marbley
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
United States District Judge
Date: March 26, 2012

3