Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00384/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-00384-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Danny Lee Jones, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-01-384-PHX-SRB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO LIMIT

AND/OR SUPPLEMENT DISCOVERY

AND TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR

PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM 

The Court granted the parties leave to conduct limited discovery in preparation for an

evidentiary hearing to be held on March 21-24, 2006, regarding Claims 20(O), (P) and (T).

(Dkt. 121.) Before the Court is Petitioner’s unopposed supplemental request for discovery,

from Drs. Anne M. Herring and John V. Scialli, experts for Respondents. (Dkt. 158.) That

motion will be granted. Also before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to extend the time

to file a joint pre-hearing memorandum until February 13, 2006. (Dkt. 164.) That motion

will also be granted.

Also before the Court is Respondents’ motion to limit further discovery by, and for

supplemental discovery from, Petitioner. (Dkt. 157.) Petitioner filed an opposition to the

motion, and Respondents filed a reply. (Dkts. 161, 162.) In their motion, Respondents

generally object to Petitioner’s statement in his notice of witnesses that purports to reserve

the right to amend the list pursuant to ongoing investigations. Respondents argue that

discovery should have been completed long ago and that Petitioner’s continuing

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 165 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 5
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

 On October 31, 2005, Petitioner also disclosed a new fact witness, Ken Everett.

Respondents do not object to the addition of this witness, provided they may informally

interview him. (Dkt. 162 at 3.) Respondents do not need Court authorization under Habeas

Rule 6 to conduct informal interviews because such investigative work is not formal

discovery for which good cause must be shown.

2

 Contrary to Respondents’ implication, Habeas Rule 6 is irrelevant to the issue of

disclosure of witnesses. Furthermore, Petitioner’s October 31, 2005, disclosure was timely.

(See Dkt. 140 at 1-2, setting October 31, 2005, as the final disclosure deadline).

2

investigation may be an attempt to expand or alter the claims before the Court. Respondents’

objections are speculative at this juncture. Petitioner has not sought discovery based on his

ongoing investigations, nor has he sought to amend his petition or witness list. Moreover,

the Court previously determined that Petitioner was not entitled to discovery on other habeas

claims. (Dkts. 90, 96, 100, 121.) 

Respondents also object to the addition of two expert witnesses by Petitioner that were

disclosed on October 31, 2005: David Ruhnke, a legal expert, and Jill Miller, a mitigation

expert.1

 According to Petitioner’s disclosure, these two experts will testify to the minimum

standards a reasonable attorney would undertake in preparing for a capital trial and

sentencing. Respondents assert that apart from indicating these witnesses’ areas of expertise,

Petitioner has not disclosed their credentials or any opinion rendered by them in connection

with the claims at issue. Respondents ask that, before expending additional time and expense

deposing these experts, Petitioner be required to show good cause for adding them pursuant

to Habeas Rule 6 or, at a minimum, that Petitioner provide Respondents with his “new”

experts’ opinions and any documents reviewed in reaching their opinions.2

 

The Court finds that testimony regarding the standards of practice for criminal defense

attorneys in capital cases will not substantially aid it in resolving Petitioner’s claims. This

Court is fully qualified to understand and apply the legal analysis required by Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), to the facts as developed during this federal habeas

corpus litigation. Cf. LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1270 n.8 (9th Cir. 1998)

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 165 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 5
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

 They cite as an example that Dr. Foy indicated he had reviewed a “mitigation

folder” but that he could not recall what was in it or how that information related to his

report. (Id.)

3

(“Although the determination of whether counsel has performed deficiently is a mixed

question of law and fact . . . there is no requirement that expert testimony of outside attorneys

be used to determine the appropriate standard of care.”). Because the Court does not intend

to allow expert testimony regarding the standards a reasonable attorney would undertake in

preparing for a capital trial and sentencing, Respondents’ request as to experts Ruhnke and

Miller will be denied as moot. 

Respondents also seek leave to obtain supplemental discovery from Petitioner’s expert

Dr. David Foy. (Dkt. 157 at 2-3.) They state that Dr. Foy failed to bring to his deposition

all of the materials he reviewed in preparing his opinion and was unable to recall the

documents he relied on in forming some of his opinions.3

 (Id.) Respondents represent that

Petitioner’s counsel agreed that his deposition could be reopened when Dr. Foy was better

prepared (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not objected to this request. Therefore, leave to reopen

Dr. Foy’s deposition will be granted. 

Finally, Respondents seek leave to depose Jeannette Sheldon, an investigator for

Petitioner’s habeas counsel, who prepared reports and memoranda that were reviewed and

relied upon by Petitioner’s previously-disclosed experts in reaching their conclusions. (Dkt.

157 at 3.) Specifically, Respondents assert that items 1-7 and 11-12 of an index of items

provided to Petitioner’s experts were prepared by Ms. Sheldon. (Id., ex. B.) Respondents

seek to depose Ms. Sheldon in order to learn the bases for the information contained in the

memoranda. Petitioner states that he has already provided the materials reviewed by his

experts, including those prepared by Ms. Sheldon, to Respondents, and he objects to

deposition of Ms. Sheldon based on the work-product doctrine. (Dkt. 161.) 

The Court will deny Respondents’ request to depose Petitioner’s counsel’s

investigator without prejudice to renewal. Petitioner represents, and Respondents do not

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 165 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

dispute, that Petitioner has disclosed the documents prepared by Ms. Sheldon that were

reviewed by Petitioner’s experts. Apart from the very general description of the items

prepared by Ms. Sheldon listed in the index attached to the motion, Respondents fail to

identify the particular aspects of Ms. Sheldon’s memoranda about which they seek to learn

the basis. The Court disagrees with Respondents’ assertion that Petitioner waived the workproduct privilege for work product of his habeas counsel, or their agents, by alleging

ineffectiveness claims against his trial counsel. Any renewed motion shall be filed no later

than February 6, 2006.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for supplemental discovery is GRANTED.

(Dkt. 158.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion for extension of time to

file a joint pre-hearing memorandum is GRANTED. The parties shall file their Joint PreHearing Memorandum no later than February 13, 2006. (Dkt. 164.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ motions to limit further discovery

by, and obtain supplemental discovery from, Petitioner is GRANTED in part and DENIED

part. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent set forth below and is otherwise DENIED.

(Dkt. 157.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are granted leave to reopen the

deposition of Dr. David Foy. Such deposition shall be completed no later than February 15,

2006, absent a stipulation submitted by the parties to extend that date. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall file any renewed motion to

depose Ms. Sheldon no later than February 6, 2006. Petitioner shall file any response 

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 165 Filed 01/30/06 Page 4 of 5
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

thereto no later than February 13, 2006, and Respondents shall file any reply no later than

February 15, 2006.

DATED this 27th day of January, 2006.

Case 2:01-cv-00384-SRB Document 165 Filed 01/30/06 Page 5 of 5