Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_00-cv-04036/USCOURTS-arwd-4_00-cv-04036-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ANDREW SASSER PETITIONER

V. Civil No. 00-CV-4036

LARRY NORRIS, Director of

Arkansas Department of Corrections RESPONDENT

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Respondent’s Motion for Leave to

Conduct Discovery seeking an order that Petitioner provide

disclosures as obligated under Fed.R.Civ.P 26(a)(2), Disclosure of

Expert Testimony, and require Petitioner to provide the disclosures

at specific times (shorter than those set by the rule). (Doc. 66.)

Petitioner filed a Response, stating that he does not object to an

order directing the parties to make disclosures contemplated by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2), but objects to Respondent’s proposed timing

of the disclosures. (Doc. 68.)

There are times in which prehearing discovery is essential, this

is one of those times. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Court approve the use of discovery in appropriate cases before an

evidentiary hearing has been granted. This is a case where the

record must be expanded due to no state record existing on the issue

and the lack of non-futile state remedies available to allow

Petitioner to bring his newly created constitutional claim.

Discovery at this point will allow facts to be presented to the Court

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 70 Filed 08/25/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

2

to assist with the question of whether an evidentiary hearing is

warranted. Furthermore, discovery should be liberally granted in

capital cases. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994)

(O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part); accord id. at 855

(majority opinion). Upon due consideration, Respondent’s motion is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The parties are hereby ordered to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(a)(2) and provide the required disclosures. The parties will

abide by the timing set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(C). Once a

party has disclosed information regarding an expert witness, the

other party will be granted leave to conduct necessary discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 25 day of August 2006. th

 /S/ Harry F. Barnes 

HARRY F. BARNES

United States District Judge

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 70 Filed 08/25/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>