Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

27

28

Case No. C 06 1793 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Jeanne S. WOODFORD, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; Eddie S. Ylst, Acting Warden of

San Quentin State Prison; and Does 1-50,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 1793 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO

FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

[Docket No. 20]

 Defendants move for an enlargement of time in which to file a responsive pleading in the

present action—specifically, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the motion in

part, contending that discovery in this action should be coordinated with discovery in the related

action, Morales v. Woodford, Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS. Plaintiff also requests

that the Court schedule a case-management conference to discuss discovery.

The question of whether PNS has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted is a

legal question that the Court may consider and resolve following the evidentiary hearing in

Morales on May 2 and 3, 2006. The fact that this legal question remains pending, however, does

not mean that discovery in the instant action should not proceed, and the Court already has noted

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 26 Filed 04/03/06 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

27

28

2

Case No. C 06 1793 JF RS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(DPSAGOK)

that judicial economy will be served to the extent that such discovery may overlap with discovery

in Morales. Having provided this guidance, the Court sees no need for a specially-set case

management conference at the present time.

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, Defendants’ motion is granted and

Plaintiff’s request is denied. The parties immediately shall coordinate discovery in the present

action with discovery in Morales as much as is practicable and not unduly burdensome and shall

commence discovery accordingly. Defendants shall file their motion to dismiss not later than

May 30, 2006; Plaintiff shall file their opposition brief not later than June 20, 2006; Defendants

shall file any reply brief not later than June 27, 2006. In addition to e-filing their briefs regarding

the motion to dismiss, the parties shall e-mail the briefs to gok1@columbia.edu. The Court will

hear oral argument on the motion to dismiss at 1:30 p.m. on July 13, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 3, 2006 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 26 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2