Opinion
No. CIV S-96-1401-DFL-CMK DEATH PENALTY CASE.
March 7, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with appointed counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A telephonic status conference regarding discovery was held in this matter on February 13, 2007, before the undersigned in Redding, California. Brian G. Smiley, Esq., appeared on behalf of respondents. James Thompson, Esq., and Jolie Lipsig, Esq., appeared on behalf of petitioner.
In a status report submitted for this hearing, petitioner identifies two categories of discovery: (1) discovery relating to documents contained in the files of the Shasta County Sheriff's Department which [respondent's counsel] considered discoverable pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and California Penal Code § 1054.9; and (2) discovery produced by the Attorney General in Frye v. Ornoski, Civ. S-99-628 LKK/JFM andRiel v. Ornoski, Civ. S-01-507-LKK/KJM, concerning Claim EE that California's death penalty statute is unconstitutional. As to the first category of discovery ("§ 1054.9 discovery"), petitioner states that most documents have been produced. All remaining documents relating to this category of discovery, including summaries of meetings with family members, shall be produced no later than April 6, 2007. As to the second category of discovery ("Claim EE discovery"), it does not appear that the parties will be able to reach an informal resolution. Therefore, any motion to compel production of this category of discovery shall be filed no later than May 18, 2007.
The court notes that Claim EE is a penalty phase claim and, as such, is not before the court on the current cross-motions for summary judgment on guilt phase claims.
If initiated by petitioner's counsel by scheduling a telephonic appearance and providing reasonable notice to respondents' counsel, a further telephonic status conference regarding discovery will be held on May 24, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. before the undersigned.
IT IS SO ORDERED.