Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-05279-7/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

27

28

1 Although the order was signed on January 27, 2006, it was not

actually filed by the Court Clerk until January 30, 2006.

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL C. BOLIN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Eddie S. Ylst, As Acting Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CV F-99-5279- AWI

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

MODIFIED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This matter is before the Court on the April 12, 2006 motion of

Petitioner Paul Bolin (“Bolin”) for reconsideration of the Court’s

April 3, 2006 order modifying the previously entered briefing

schedule. Respondent Eddie S. Ylst, As Acting Warden of San Quentin

State Prison (the “Warden”) opposes the motion.

I. Background.

The original briefing schedule was established in an order issued

by the Court on January 30, 2006.1 Under that order, Bolin was to

file his opening points and authorities in support of his Amended

Petition on or before May 30, 2006 (120 days following entry of the

order). The Warden was to file his opposition points and authorities

on or before September 27, 2006 (120 days following the filing of

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 8
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 Discovery in habeas actions can only be conducted following

court authorization, which, in turn requires a showing of “good

cause.” One component of “good cause” is that the material sought is

not available by informal means. 

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 2

Bolin’s opening points and authorities). The due date for Bolin’s

reply brief was scheduled for November 27, 2006 (60 days following the

filing of the Warden’s opposition). Bolin was to schedule a second

Phase III Case Management Conference to be conducted on or before

December 27, 2006 (30 days following the filing of his reply brief).

Just over 60 days after entry of the January 30, 2006 order, on

March 31, 2006, Bolin filed an application to modify the briefing

schedule. In his application, he recounted that although he was then

prepared to file a motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 6 of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, he could not do so until informal

efforts to obtain discovery voluntarily were exhausted.2 Bolin noted

that numerous informal discovery requests were outstanding as of the

filing of the initial application. These outstanding requests

included documents to be produced voluntarily by the Kern County

District Attorney’s Office (to assist in the reconstruction of trial

counsel’s file), Freedom of Information Act requests to environmental

regulatory agencies concerning toxic contamination of work sites to

which Bolin was exposed, Bolin’s military service records from the

Department of Defense, records relative to the defense investigator,

Bruce Binns, who worked on Bolin’s trial, and local (Bakersfield)

media recordings of the jury view of the crime scene on December 10,

1990. While Bolin explained that the Kern County District Attorney’s

Office is cooperating with the request for materials that would have

comprised the trial records of Bolin’s trial counsel, no information

was provided regarding the status of other informal discovery

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 8
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

3 Although the District Attorney’s Office is cooperating, Bolin

strongly implies that further compelled discovery will be sought from

this agency.

4 The Court understands from this that the main focus of any

discovery motion will be documents in the possession of the District

Attorney’s Office. The reconsideration motion is silent as to whether

formal third-party discovery also will be sought from the other

entities and agencies.

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 3

efforts.3 Bolin asked the Court to grant him up to and including June

15, 2006 to file any motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 6, and to

leave for a later determination an appropriate new briefing schedule.

On April 3, 2006, the Court granted Bolin’s motion to modify the

original briefing schedule established in the January 30, 2006 order.

The Court granted Bolin up to an including May 15, 2006 to file any

motions for discovery and a deadline to complete any authorized

discovery by June 15, 2006. The Court additionally extended the due

date for Bolin’s opening points and authorities in support of his

Amended Petition from May 30, 2006 to July 17, 2006, with subsequent

due dates as calculated in the January 30, 2006 order to remain the

same.

II. Bolin’s Argument.

Bolin asserts that the May 15, 2006 discovery motion due date

provided in the Court’s April 3, 2006 order is unrealistic. He claims

he needs up to June 15 to file his discovery motion because he may not

even receive documents from the District Attorney’s Office until May

15, 2006.4 This follows because the District Attorney’s Office is not

scheduled to identify and segregate documents to be voluntarily

disclosed until the end of April, and before the documents can be

copied, advance authorization must be obtained by the Federal

Defender’s Office to hire a copy service to copy the documents. Bolin

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 8
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

5 Bolin does not actually identify 109 as the number days

involved. This number of days was calculated based on information

Bolin provided.

6 Although 28 days after June 15 is July 13, the Court only sets

hearings on Mondays. July 17 is the first Monday after 28 days from

the proposed motion filing date.

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 4

estimates this process will require from 10 to 14 days, or up to

approximately May 15.

With respect to his opening points and authorities, Bolin gives

an estimate of the number of days it is likely to take between tasks

from filing the discovery motion to filing his opening brief. The

intervals take into account his anticipated contested discovery

motion, the need to actually conduct discovery, and time to assimilate

all the information obtained into the comprehensive opening brief.

The number of days involved comes to 109 days, which when added to the

proposed June 15, 2006 date to file his Rule 6 discovery motion would

put the due date for his opening brief at October 2, 2006.5 This is

just over four months past the due date originally scheduled in the

January 30, 2006 order.

The 109 days are calculated as follows. After Bolin files his

motion on June 15, which he anticipates will be contested, the Warden

will have 14 days to file an opposition, pursuant to Local Rule 78-

230. Bolin will then have 7 days after the Warden opposes to file a

reply. Bolin would then like the opportunity to be heard at oral

argument, which he would set for July 17,6 when he files the motion.

Assuming the Court would be able to render an immediate ruling, Bolin

then states he will require 45 days to complete any approved

discovery. The Court understands that discovery sought to be

propounded will be third-party discovery accomplished by the service

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 8
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

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 5

of subpoenas duces tecum. The 45-day estimate will provide the thirdparties the customary 30 days within which to comply with the

subpoenas, and/or time to move to quash the subpoenas. Bolin then

requests 30 days after expiration of the 45-day period for completion

of discovery to file his opening points and authorities. Because 30

days after the 45-day period falls on a Saturday, two more days are

required. (The sum of 14 days (for the opposition) plus 7 days (for

the reply) plus 11 days (until oral argument) plus 45 days (to

complete discovery) plus 32 days (to write and file the opening brief)

is 109 days.) If the Court denies discovery, Bolin concedes that his

opening brief should be filed 30 days after the Court so rules.

III. The Warden’s Argument.

The Warden argues that Bolin’s proposed discovery motion will be

meritless. Pointing to language in the January 30, 2006 order

limiting the scope of pre-briefing discovery, the Warden maintains

Bolin’s prediction that extensive discovery may be sought will violate

that order. The Warden additionally refers to language in the January

30, 2006 order proscribing the completion of all factual development

prior to the filing of the opening brief. The Warden also claims that

Bolin will be able to write his opening brief even before discovery

is completed. Next, the Warden claims that a discovery motion at this

juncture will be untimely. Finally, he claims that significant

discovery which alters the nature of currently alleged claims must be

factually exhausted in state court.

IV. Resolution.

Two separate issues are presented. The first relates to

postponing the due date for Bolin’s filing of his anticipated Rule 6

discovery motion. The second pertains to setting a briefing schedule

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 8
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

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 6

based on the need to litigate contested discovery requests and then

to complete discovery.

A. Postponing the Due Date for the Discovery Motion.

The Court does not agree with the Warden’s contention that

establishing a briefing schedule for a discovery motion should be

driven by considering in advance the merits of what is to be briefed.

This calls for speculation. Specifically addressing the Warden’s

concerns, first, although the scope of authorized discovery on habeas

corpus is limited, this does not compel the conclusion that extensive

discovery within this limited scope may not have to be conducted.

Second, the factual development referred to in the January 30, 2006

order, which the Court said definitely would not be completed prior

to Bolin’s filing of his opening brief, relates to conducting an

evidentiary hearing. Third, the Court will not interfere peremptorily

with Bolin’s litigation strategy in deciding what information is

needed to adequately support his opening brief. Fourth, the issues

of Bolin’s diligence in pursuing discovery and the prospect that

discovery may defeat exhaustion will be addressed (if the arguments

are raised) in resolution of contested discovery requests. It is

premature to address those issues now.

On the other hand, Bolin has not justified a 45-day gap between

the time the District Attorney’s office makes requested information

available (the end of April) to the proposed filing date for a

discovery motion (June 15). First, the volume of documents is not

described. Second, the need for waiting another two weeks to copy the

documents because of funding matters is not reasonable. The Court is

not convinced the Federal Defender could not arrange advance

authorization, or at least send someone from the litigation team down

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 8
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

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 7

to Bakersfield to inspect the documents upon disclosure by the

District Attorney’s Office. Third, the Court also does not appreciate

the reason for Bolin’s need to wait 30 days from copying the documents

to filing a proposed motion. Again, the moving papers are silent as

to whether discovery will be sought only from the District Attorney’s

Office or whether the other agencies and entities mentioned

(environmental agencies, Department of Defense, trial investigator,

Bakersfield media companies) also will receive subpoenas.

Despite these concerns, the Court grants Bolin up to and

including Monday, June 12, 2006 to file his discovery motion or

motions. All proposed subpoenas duces tecum should te appended to the

discovery motion(s).

B. Re-Establishing a Due Date for Bolin’s Opening Memorandum

of Points and Authorities.

Because of the uncertainty as to when the Court will issue a

ruling on Bolin’s anticipated discovery motion (or motions),

determining when discovery will be complete and when Bolin’s opening

brief reasonably can be filed will be deferred until the Court rules

on Bolin’s anticipated discovery motion(s). The Court has in mind,

however, requiring Bolin to file his opening brief within 60 days from

the order granting discovery. The Court encourages the parties to

file prompt papers with the Court, notwithstanding the time limits

permitted under the Local Rules.

V. Order.

The motion for reconsideration of the briefing schedule

modification is granted. Bolin shall file his discovery motion or

motions on or before June 12, 2006. The Warden shall file his

opposition brief promptly, but in no event past the due date specified

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 7 of 8
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

99dp05279.OGrantReconReModBriefSch.bol.wpd 8

in Local Rule 78-230. Likewise, Bolin shall file his reply brief

promptly, but in no event past the due date specified in Local Rule

78-230. The Court will determine whether to decide the matter with

or without a hearing. When the Court issues its ruling regarding

authorized discovery, a briefing schedule for merits briefing will be

established.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2006 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

Case 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB Document 165 Filed 04/19/06 Page 8 of 8