From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TIMBERLAKE v. BUSS

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana
Jan 8, 2007
NO. 1:06-cv-1841-RLY VSS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Opinion

NO. 1:06-cv-1841-RLY VSS.

January 8, 2007


ENTRY


The petitioner's motion to strike, for protective order, etc., filed on January 4, 2007, is granted in part and denied in part, consistent with the following:

1. The declaration of Dr. Embar will not be stricken.
2. The declaration of Dr. Embar will not be considered as part of the expanded record in this case. The reason for this ruling is at least that this action involves a review of the decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in Timberlake v. State, 858 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2006), and Dr. Embar's recent session with Mr. Timberlake had not yet occurred when the Indiana Supreme Court acted. This Entry constitutes a protective order to the extent consistent with the foregoing.
3. Based on the above, no discovery or further proceedings as to the petitioner's motion to strike, for protective order, etc., are warranted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

TIMBERLAKE v. BUSS

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana
Jan 8, 2007
NO. 1:06-cv-1841-RLY VSS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)
Case details for

TIMBERLAKE v. BUSS

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN TIMBERLAKE, Petitioner, v. ED BUSS, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Indiana

Date published: Jan 8, 2007

Citations

NO. 1:06-cv-1841-RLY VSS (S.D. Ind. Jan. 8, 2007)

Citing Cases

Timberlake v. State

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (2). The district court concluded that we had correctly identified Ford as the…