Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 Nos. C 06 219 JF & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Roderick Q. HICKMAN, Secretary of the

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation; Steven W. Ornoski, Acting Warden

of San Quentin State Prison; and Does 1-50,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 219 JF

Case Number C 06 926 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETTING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[Docket No. 69]

Having consulted with counsel for the parties, and good cause therefor appearing,

the Court hereby sets a Case Management Conference in the above-entitled actions for Friday,

March 3, 2006 at 1:30pm. Counsel may appear telephonically; arrangements may be made

through the Court’s judicial assistant, Teresa Fleishman, at (408) 535-5426.

The matters to be discussed at the Case Management Conference will include, without

limitation, the following:

1. Whether Defendants intend to present a revised lethal-injection protocol prior to the

evidentiary hearing, or if the hearing will concern Plaintiff’s challenge to the current protocol; 

2. If Defendants intend to present a revised protocol, when the particulars of that protocol

will be made available to Plaintiff’s counsel and the Court;

**E-filed 2/23/06**

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 81 Filed 02/23/06 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 06 219 JF & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

(DPSAGOK)

3. Depending upon whether the evidentiary hearing concerns a revised protocol or the

current one, what additional discovery is contemplated in advance of the hearing, whether any

orders are appropriate with respect to the timing of such discovery, whether any issues of

privilege or confidentiality are likely to arise in the course of discovery, and whether the Court

should refer some or all discovery disputes to the assigned Magistrate Judge;

4. Other logistics related to the evidentiary hearing, such as the appropriate allocation of 

time between presentation of live witnesses and argument, and an appropriate pre-hearing and 

post-hearing briefing schedule.

Counsel are not required to file a written statement in advance of the Case Management 

Conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATED: February 23, 2006 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 81 Filed 02/23/06 Page 2 of 2