Monroe v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 86

SCHEDULING ORDER - This Discovery due by 8/1/2013. With the consent of both parties made during the scheduling conference, the Court now sets August 1, 2013, as the deadline for completion of all permitted discovery. Counsel indicated their understan ding that production of documents and any court rulings on privilege matters will need to precede depositions which have been permitted and will schedule those events to make completion of discovery by August 1, 2013, feasible.Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 01/24/2013. (kf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
JONATHON D. MONROE,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:07-cv-258
:

District Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsWARDEN, Ohio State Penitentiary,
:
Respondent.

SCHEDULING ORDER

This capital habeas corpus case came on for telephone scheduling conference at 10:30
A.M. on Thursday, January 24, 2013. Jerome Linneman and Laurence Komp participated on
behalf of the Petitioner; Brenda Leikala participated on behalf of the Respondent.
On September 21, 2012, the Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part
Petitioner’s Motion for Discovery and Respondent’s Request for Reciprocal Discovery (Doc.
No. 82). That Decision set the parameters of discovery and adopted a deadline of December 21,
2012, for completion of the allowed discovery. No appeal was taken from that Decision and it
accordingly establishes the law of the case for what discovery is allowable. On November 16,
2012, the discovery deadline was vacated in light of the impending substitution of new counsel
for Petitioner, Mr. Linneman (Doc. No. 84).
With the consent of both parties made during the scheduling conference, the Court now
sets August 1, 2013, as the deadline for completion of all permitted discovery. Counsel indicated
their understanding that production of documents and any court rulings on privilege matters will

1

need to precede depositions which have been permitted and will schedule those events to make
completion of discovery by August 1, 2013, feasible.
During the conference, the Court discussed the possible need for a ruling on privilege
waiver by Petitioner. Having reviewed the prior Decision and Order, the Court notes that it
already ruled as follows:
Monroe explains that his appellate counsel have declined to speak
with habeas counsel in the absence of a waiver of attorney-client
privilege. By law, filing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel
constitutes a waiver of that privilege as to communications about
the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel made. In re Lott,
424 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2005); Tasby v. United States, 504 F.2d 332
(8th Cir. 1974); Randall v. United States, 314 F.2d 800 (10th Cir.
1963); United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287 (5th Cir. 1986);
Laughner v. United States, 373 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1967);
Crutchfield v. Wainwright, 803 F.2d 1103 (11th Cir. 1986). The
Court finds that Monroe has waived the attorney-client privilege as
to all his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, both trial and
appeal.

(Decision and Order, Doc. No. 82, PageID 5664.)

January 24, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2