Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00065/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00065-29/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. COX,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-CV-0065 MCE CKD

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

On May 29, 2015, the court granted in part petitioner’s motion to perpetuate testimony. 

(ECF No. 157.) The court permitted petitioner to preserve the testimony of Dr. Albert Globus, 

five social history witnesses, and Juror Kurtzman. The court ordered the parties to meet and 

confer, within thirty days of the court’s order, regarding the method for taking the testimony of 

the six lay witnesses. In the meantime, respondent sought, and was denied, reconsideration of the 

May 29 order. (ECF Nos. 160, 163.) Petitioner now files a status report partly describing the 

parties’ discussions regarding the perpetuation of testimony and requesting the court set a 

schedule for respondent to move for discovery prior to the testimony deposition or depositions. 

(ECF No. 164.) 

Petitioner’s filing leaves a number of questions unanswered. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten days of the filed date of this order, respondent 

shall file a status report explaining the following:

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 165 Filed 09/01/15 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

1. Whether, after review of discovery, he may be willing to stipulate to the submission of 

the declarations of the social history witnesses and Juror Kurtzman as their testimony;

2. Whether, after receipt of the discovery provided by petitioner on August 27, he intends 

to move for additional discovery prior to the taking of testimony; and

3. His position on the protective order proposed by petitioner, which this court has 

approved in Lenart v. Warden, 2:05-cv-1912 MCE CKD (ECF Nos. 139, 141).

Dated: September 1, 2015

Cox disco sts.or

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 165 Filed 09/01/15 Page 2 of 2