Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01793-8/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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(DPSAGOK)

 **E-filed 8/18/06**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

James E. TILTON, Acting Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation, and Robert L. Ayers Jr., Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 1793 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

[Docket No. 46]

On July 20, 2006, the Court issued an order in which it deferred ruling on Defendants’

motion to dismiss the complaint in the above-entitled action until after the evidentiary hearing in

the related case, Morales v. Tilton, No. C 06 219 JF RS, which is scheduled for the last week of

September 2006. Defendants now move for a stay of discovery pending the resolution of their

motion to dismiss, citing conflicts that have arisen regarding the scheduling of two depositions in

the present matter and preparation for the evidentiary hearing in Morales.

The Court previously ordered the parties to coordinate discovery in Morales and the

present action because the issues presented by the two actions are closely related and the Court

has set an expedited schedule for the resolution of these matters. Pursuant to such order, the

plaintiff in Morales has not sought certain discovery to which he otherwise would be entitled in

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 51 Filed 08/18/06 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 DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

(DPSAGOK)

reliance on the efforts of Plaintiff in the present action, Pacific News Service, to seek such

discovery. Thus, a stay of discovery in this action would necessitate additional discovery efforts

by Morales in the final weeks before the evidentiary hearing in the related case, thereby affecting

adversely the orderly process that the coordination of discovery in the two actions was intended

to facilitate. Moreover, Defendants have not made any showing of good cause for a stay beyond

a description of difficulties in scheduling two depositions, and the Court is concerned that a stay

would cause undue delay in the resolution of the present action.

Accordingly, in the interests of judicial economy, and good cause appearing therefor,

Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 18, 2006 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01793-RS Document 51 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2