Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00943/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00943-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kathy Mendoza-Powers
Respondent
Devin Otte
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVIN OTTE,

Petitioner,

v.

KATHY MENDOZA-POWERS,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00943 OWW SMS HC

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

[Doc. 10]

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Joseph Camarata, Esq. 

Petitioner filed the instant action on May 23, 2006, in the United States District Court for

the Central District of California. On July 21, 2006, the action was transferred to this Court. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order of September 12, 2006, Respondent filed an answer to the

petition on December 5, 2006. Petitioner filed a traverse on January 31, 2007, along with a

motion for discovery. (Court Docs. 9, 10, 11.)

On May 18, 2007, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to Petitioner’s motion

for discovery. Respondent filed her response on June 15, 2007.

In her response, Respondent states that Petitioner is represented by the same counsel who

represents Petitioner’s co-defendant in the underlying criminal action, Ron Morton Jr. in 1:06-cv00873-OWW-NEW(DLB) (HC). As noted by Respondent and the Court’s May 18, 2007, order, 

the same discovery request was made by counsel in the Morton matter. The Board of Parole

Case 1:06-cv-00943-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/26/07 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

27

28 Respondent preserves its argument that this information is neither relevant nor discoverable. 

1

2

Hearings queried its computer database in the Morton matter and found that in eight instances

within the last five years, life inmates had succeeded at their initial suitability hearing. Since

counsel was furnished with this information in the Morton matter, as well as the computer

printouts showing details, Respondent states that she does not object to providing the same

information to the same counsel in the instant case. Respondent further states that since the 1

information is already available, it is provided in the interests of courtesy and avoidance of

unnecessary litigation. 

Accordingly, based on Respondent’s representation in its June 15, 2007, response,

Petitioner’s motion for discovery is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 25, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00943-OWW -SMS Document 14 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2