Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02710/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-02710-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

JESSICA HOLMES,

Petitioner,

v.

DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, Warden,

Respondent.

No. 2:11-cv-2710 JKS KJN P (TEMP)

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. An evidentiary hearing is set in this matter for May 2-3, 

2016, on petitioner’s claim that her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during the plea 

bargain process. 

By order dated February 9, 2016, the undersigned granted petitioner’s motion for 

discovery of the trial file of petitioner’s trial counsel and any notes relating to trial counsel’s 

advice to petitioner regarding whether to accept the prosecution’s plea offer. The parties were 

advised that if a dispute arose over whether the entire file had been turned over to petitioner they 

could, after meeting and conferring, file a motion in this court to resolve the dispute. The parties 

were also advised that they must be prepared to specify in any such motion the documents that 

had not been turned over in discovery and the reasons those documents had not been produced.

/////

Case 2:11-cv-02710-JKS-KJN Document 68 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

On February 26, 2016, petitioner filed and set on the court’s calendar a motion to schedule 

a status conference for a date “sometime prior to the evidentiary hearing presently scheduled.” 

(ECF No. 64, at 1.) Petitioner explains that the “ostensible purpose” of this status conference is 

to determine whether she has been provided with her trial counsel’s entire file. (Id. at 2.) On 

February 29, 2016, respondent filed and set on the court’s calendar a motion for discovery. (ECF 

No. 66.) Therein, respondent requests an order requiring petitioner to disclose no later than 21 

days prior to the start of the evidentiary hearing all documents contained in trial counsel’s file that 

are relevant to petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Respondent explains that 

the parties have “exchanged multiple emails” on this subject and are “coming closer to an 

agreement regarding discovery of the relevant contents of trial counsel’s file.” (Id. at 1, 5.) 

Respondent also states that petitioner refuses to turn over this discovery until seven days before 

the evidentiary hearing. (Id. at 5.) 

Good cause appearing, the parties will be ordered to file a joint stipulation, not to exceed 7

pages, setting forth the current status of discovery regarding the production of trial counsel’s file, 

including a brief description of the documents that have not been turned over in discovery, if any,

and the reasons those documents have not been produced. The parties shall also set forth their 

position on the timing of disclosure of all relevant discovery. The hearing dates scheduled by the 

parties on their respective motions will be taken off calendar. If the court determines that a 

hearing is necessary after reviewing the joint statement, it will set a status conference sua sponte. 

The court will sign any protective order agreed upon by the parties with respect to disclosure of 

documents subject to the attorney-client privilege.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Within two weeks from the date of this order, the parties shall file a joint stipulation, 

not to exceed 7 pages, setting forth the current status of discovery regarding the production of

documents from the file of petitioner’s trial counsel. The stipulation shall include a brief 

description of the documents that have not been turned over in discovery, the reasons those 

documents have not been produced, and the parties’ position on the timing of disclosure of all 

relevant discovery. 

Case 2:11-cv-02710-JKS-KJN Document 68 Filed 03/04/16 Page 2 of 3
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

2. The March 24, 2016 hearing date on Petitioner’s “Motion to Schedule Status 

Conference” (ECF No. 64) is vacated; and

3. The March 31, 2016 hearing date on respondent’s motion for discovery (ECF No. 66) 

is vacated.

Dated: March 4, 2016

Holmes2710.o 

Case 2:11-cv-02710-JKS-KJN Document 68 Filed 03/04/16 Page 3 of 3