From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FRYE v. AYERS

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 6, 2008
No. CIV S-99-0628 LKK KJM DEATH PENALTY CASE (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-99-0628 LKK KJM DEATH PENALTY CASE.

May 6, 2008


ORDER


This court has, of course, received a copy of petitioner's April 16, 2008 motion for reconsideration by the district judge of this court's April 2 and April 7, 2008 orders and the briefs in opposition and reply. The purpose of this order is to address two of the issues raised by petitioner's motion. These issues are properly resolved by the undersigned so as to limit the efforts the district judge need expend on the substantive issues petitioner truly disputes.

Good cause appearing, and because respondent does not disagree, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Paragraph 1, subparagraph g, on page 7 of the April 2 scheduling order shall be replaced by the following:

All discovery, with the exception of petitioner's depositions of respondent's experts, must be concluded by June 30, 2008. Petitioner shall have until July 31, 2008 to depose respondent's experts. Any motions to compel shall be filed so as to be heard before these deadlines. The court will be willing to consider such motions on shortened time. Depositions to be taken in lieu of in-court testimony are not subject to these deadlines.

2. With respect to the change sought to the April 7, 2008 protective order to add specific coverage for experts who worked with defense counsel, it should be noted that such coverage is not necessary, as this court concluded following the parties' last appearance. Respondent sought discovery of petitioner's trial counsel's files. The April 7 protective order covers "[a]ll documents produced to respondent pursuant to respondent's request to discover petitioner's trial counsel's files." Apr. 7, 2008 Order at 2:15-16. Any work of defense experts contained in those files is covered by the protective order. In any event, to pacify petitioner's counsel, the undersigned hereby amends paragraph 1 at page 2, lines 15-16, of the April 7 protective order by replacing the first sentence with the following: "All documents produced to respondent pursuant to respondent's request to discover petitioner's trial counsel's files, including information related to or by confidential experts who worked with petitioner's trial counsel, shall be deemed to be confidential."


Summaries of

FRYE v. AYERS

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 6, 2008
No. CIV S-99-0628 LKK KJM DEATH PENALTY CASE (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2008)
Case details for

FRYE v. AYERS

Case Details

Full title:JERRY GRANT FRYE, Petitioner, v. ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Warden of San…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: May 6, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-99-0628 LKK KJM DEATH PENALTY CASE (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2008)