Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00152-33/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE IAN OSBAND,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-97-0152 WBS KJM

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., 

 Acting Warden of San Quentin 

 State Prison, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

The undersigned held a telephonic status conference on January 5, 2007 to hear

argument on petitioner’s motions for supplemental discovery and to continue the evidentiary

hearing. Tivon Schardl and Tim Brosnan participated for petitioner. Ward Campbell and

Stephanie Mitchell participated for respondent. Upon review of the motions and the documents

in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing

therefor, the court made the following findings and orders and announced them to the parties at

the hearing.

Petitioner seeks issuance of a subpoena to the Sacramento County Bar

Association’s Indigent Defense Panel (“IDP”) for files on one of his trial attorneys. Respondent

does not oppose the request. Because the discovery of these files may lead to the discovery of

information relevant to the issues to be developed during the January 22, 2007 evidentiary

Case 2:97-cv-00152-KJM-CSK Document 350 Filed 01/05/07 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

2

hearing, the undersigned finds good cause for issuance of the subpoena and petitioner’s

December 20, 2006 Supplemental Motion for Discovery is granted. Rule 6, Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. Because the evidentiary hearing is imminent, petitioner’s counsel is

directed to serve the subpoena on the IDP today.

The parties discussed two issues related to service of the subpoena. First, the

undersigned raised the issue of the time associated with any potential objection to or motion to

quash the subpoena. Second, respondent raised the issue of notice to the attorney who is the

subject of the IDP file. There is concern that, without prompt notice to the attorney, there could

be a delay in any objections to provision of the IDP file to petitioner. The parties are instructed

to notify the court by letter brief by the close of business today: (1) whether the court is able to

require any objection to the subpoena be made on shortened time, and (2) the best method for

notifying the affected attorney of the subpoena. 

Petitioner’s December 29, 2006 motion for a continuance is submitted. The

undersigned expects petitioner to proceed with the expectation that the evidentiary hearing will

begin as scheduled on January 22. However, a second telephonic status conference has been set

for January 12, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. At that time, the parties shall inform the court of the status of

discovery of the IDP file, related investigations, whether either party will seek to supplement

their witness or exhibit lists, and whether the parties are able to agree to a schedule for the

evidentiary hearing that would accommodate the readiness of counsel in light of recently

discovered information.

DATED: January 5, 2007.

osband1.5stsconf.or

Case 2:97-cv-00152-KJM-CSK Document 350 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2