Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00229/USCOURTS-azd-4_03-cv-00229-7/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Scott Detrich, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-229-TUC-DCB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and Unopposed

Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. 173). 

The Court’s July 2006 scheduling order set the following disclosure deadline:

Both parties shall disclose any witness statements, declarations, affidavits,

and/or depositions on which they intend to rely in lieu of live testimony by

December 4, 2006. The parties shall file only a notice of such disclosure, the

actual disclosures need not be filed with the Court at this time.

(Dkt. 130.) On December 4, Petitioner disclosed to Respondents and the Court a list of

witnesses on whose declarations they intend to rely, but provided only a few actual

declarations to Respondents as Petitioner is not currently in possession of the remainder of

them. Petitioner’s counsel indicated their belief that disclosure of the actual declarations

was not required at this time but recognized the possibility they misinterpreted the order;

therefore, they seek clarification of the Court’s scheduling order and a time extension if the

declarations were supposed to have been disclosed by December 4.

Case 4:03-cv-00229-DCB Document 177 Filed 12/06/06 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

1

 The Court notes that it does not find the language of its Order ambiguous and

Respondents experienced no difficulty interpreting it (see Dkt. 172). More significantly, in

an ex parte sealed budget motion, one of the reasons counsel requested additional hours was

the need to “draft declarations for the December 5 witness disclosure” (Dkt. 158 at 15); thus,

it appears that as of October 27, 2006, counsel believed the Court’s order required the

disclosure of the actual declarations by the December deadline. 

- 2 -

The Court intended that the parties would disclose the actual declarations to one

another on December 4,1

 to allow sufficient time for the parties to challenge or rebut the

declarations prior to the scheduled evidentiary hearing. With the knowledge that the

evidentiary hearing will begin on February 6, Respondents do not object to allowing

Petitioner until January 3, 2007, to disclose the actual declarations. Therefore, the Court will

grant the requested extension but does not intend to extend other deadlines or the hearing

based on this unopposed request. Additionally, the Court strongly encourages Petitioner to

complete the declarations as soon as possible and to disclose them as they become available.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Clarification and Unopposed Motion

for Extension of Time (Dkt. 173) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall complete disclosure of all

witness declarations upon which he intends to rely in lieu of live testimony on or before

January 3, 2007.

DATED this 6th day of December, 2006.

Case 4:03-cv-00229-DCB Document 177 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2