Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-4/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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD F. STANLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

vs.

STEVEN ORNOSKI, Acting DEATH PENALTY CASE

Warden of the California State Prison

at San Quentin,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

The court has now considered respondent’s motion for clarification (necessity for

Rule 26 expert reports) filed September 7, 2005, and petitioner’s response filed September 16,

2005.

As the court previously found, the prior scheduling order (as well as a number of

verbal admonitions in court) clearly required expert reports at the time of designation. While an

expert’s report could always be supplemented by a discovered fact of a truly emergent nature, the

bases of the expert’s opinions, and information considered, as is available, must be disclosed. 

Respondent claims that his mental health expert cannot be ready to issue a report

on his designation, and probably cannot have report filed even by October 7, 2005. Respondent

ambiguously claims that his expert requires information not yet disclosed by petitioner in order

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 542 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

for an opinion to be formulated.

Petitioner has demonstrated that the vast majority of information pertinent to an

expert’s opinion would have been available to respondent (or could have been available) in

ample time for the expert to have rendered an informed opinion. The undersigned will not repeat

petitioner’s chronology of events. 

The court finds no good cause, much less the required extraordinary

circumstances for further schedule changes, to modify the scheduling orders in this case. 

Nevertheless, in order to avoid a probable default on the mental health issues, respondent’s

expert(s) shall prepare and serve a report in full compliance with the expert provisions of Rule 26

no later than September 30, 2005. In the event that a satisfactory report is not submitted by that

time, the expert will not be permitted to testify.

Petitioner’s counsel may seek monetary sanctions, if counsel so desire, no later

than September 30, 2005.

DATED: 9/19/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 __________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

stan1500.exp

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 542 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2