Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cr-00072/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cr-00072-33/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel Stone
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMUEL STONE,

Defendant.

12-cr-0072 JCC-GSA

 ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

 FOR RECONSIDERATION

 (Doc. 152) 

I. Introduction

On December 4, 2013, Defendant, Samuel Stone (“Defendant”) filed a Motion for 

Reconsideration of this Court’s order issued on November 20, 2013. (Docs. 143, 152). On 

December 6, 2013, the United States (“the government”) filed an opposition. (Doc. 153). On 

December 13, 2013, Defendant filed a reply. (Doc. 161). There appears to be some confusion 

about the discovery process in this case. Accordingly, the Court will clarify the meaning of its 

order issued on November 20, 2013. (Doc. 143). However, the Defendant’s Motion for 

Reconsideration with regard to discovery requests numbered (66) and (67) is denied as premature 

in light of the Court’s clarification as set forth below.

Case 1:12-cr-00072-JCC-GSA Document 171 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 5
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

II. Relevant Procedural History and Clarification

As the parties are aware, it is and always has been the Court’s intention to phase the discovery 

in this matter so that disputes can be narrowed and resolved in the most efficient way possible. 

On August 27, 2013, this Court issued a discovery order addressing three of Defendant’s Motions 

to Compel. (Doc. 34, 78, 95 and 106). In this discovery order, the government was directed to 

provide certain materials to the Defendant in response to various discovery requests. The Court 

also ordered that the government provide documents to the Court, or file explanations outlining 

why certain information was too burdensome to produce, and what attempts it made to locate 

materials it claimed did not exist. (Doc. 106, pgs. 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-19). The Court set a 

deadline of September 30, 2013 for the government to comply with the above orders. Pursuant to 

the Defendant’s request, the Court also set a discovery deadline of December 31, 2013 to allow 

Defendant time to review the government’s responses, as well as to review the materials the 

government provided to him.1(Doc. 106, pg. 19, lines 18-26). If the Defendant believed that the 

government’s responses or material were inadequate, he could file a supplemental discovery 

motion by the December 31, 2013 deadline. Similarly, Defendant is entitled to file a discovery 

motion addressing new discovery issues not previously raised. 

On November 8, 2013, the Court issued a Supplemental Discovery order indicating that 

the government had not complied with the Court’s August 27, 2013 order requiring the United 

States to respond to certain discovery requests by the date of September 30, 2013.2(Doc. 136). 

Specifically, the Court ordered the government to file responses to discovery requests numbered

 

1

In the August 27, 2013 discovery order, the Court noted that Defendant had requested that he have ninety days 

to request supplemental discovery, as well as an additional thirty days to file a formal discovery motion if the 

government’s responses were inadequate. (Doc. 106, pg. 19, lines 18-26). The Court agreed that Defendant should 

be given more time to file additional discovery motions, but that the four months requested was excessive. The Court 

set December 31, 2013 as the deadline to file discovery motions. 

2

 In the order, the Court presumed that the government’s failure to comply was because of a pending Motion for 

Reconsideration of this Court’s August 27 order pending before Judge Coughenour. (Doc. 136, pg. 2, n. 2).

Case 1:12-cr-00072-JCC-GSA Document 171 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 5
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

(6), (11), (13), (14), (15), (66), (67), (m), (p) ,(u), and (v) no later than December 9, 2013. (Doc. 

136, pg. 3, lines 4-13).

On November 19, 2013, the government filed several motions requesting clarification 

regarding a number of issues. (Docs. 139, 140, 141). At issue here is the Government’s Motion 

for Reconsideration (Doc. 140) wherein the government advised the Court that it had filed a 

response on September 30, 2013. (Doc. 119). It reiterated its responses filed on September 30,

and requested clarification as to what else, if anything, the Court was requiring. (Doc. 140). The 

Court re-reviewed the docket and noted the Defendant had in fact filed responses on September 

30. Accordingly, on November 20, 2013, the Court issued an order advising the government that 

the responses were sufficient and the orders were discharged. (Doc. 143). The Court discharged 

the prior discovery orders with regard to the requests listed above to acknowledge the 

government’s filings, and to advise the parties that this phase of discovery was completed. The 

Court did not, however, grant or deny Defendant’s underlying discovery requests as the discovery 

process itself was not completed. No response to the government’s Motion for Reconsideration 

was needed from Defendant because the Court had already set the December 31, 2013 deadline 

for Defendant to review materials received and raise any unresolved discovery disputes at that 

time. Accordingly, the Court’s November 20 order does not relieve the government from 

complying with any of this Court’s prior discovery rulings, nor has the Court discharged the

government’s ongoing discovery obligations under Brady, Giglio, Jencks, or the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. 

Although the Court is perplexed by the Defendant’s confusion given the circumstances under 

which the Court issued the order, and the fact that Defendant requested the two phase discovery 

process in the first instance, the Court acknowledges that the Court’s November 20th order is

subject to different interpretations. However, rather than filing a neutrally worded motion for 

Case 1:12-cr-00072-JCC-GSA Document 171 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 5
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

4

clarification, the Defendant opted to file a motion which not only reflects a fundamental 

misunderstanding of this Court’s Nov 20, 2013 ruling, but unfortunately includes unnecessary 

and demeaning assertions directed at this Court. (Doc. 152, pgs. 2-3, 10-12 and Doc. 161, pg. 13 

lines 1-6 ). Unprofessional and unfounded accusations of constitutional violations are, at a 

minimum, troubling. Having said this, counsel can rest assured that these misguided claims will 

not deter this Court from continuing its ongoing efforts to fairly and justly resolve ongoing 

disputes between counsel. With this in mind, counsel for both sides are urgently and 

emphatically reminded that although zealous advocacy is expected, such advocacy has its ethical 

boundaries. As such, zealous advocacy must always be tempered with a view toward the 

overarching responsibility counsel has to act with the highest degree of professionalism. This 

includes not only giving due respect to the Court, but treating each other with respect, and most 

importantly, respecting the judicial process we all serve. Counsel must adhere to this directive

even when emotionally charged issues are present as in this case.

The Court intends to rule on all of the remaining unresolved discovery disputes in one order. 

Therefore, this Court will delay ruling on Defendant’s motion regarding requests (66) and (67),

until any remaining discovery motions are filed by the December 31, 2013 deadline. 

Accordingly, no hearing with regard to requests (66) and (67) will be held at this time. If a 

discovery motion is filed on or before December 31, 2013, the Court will set deadlines for the 

filing of an opposition and a reply. A hearing will be scheduled if the Court determines one is 

necessary. Any discovery motion filed on or before December 31, 2013 need not repeat 

arguments already raised and responded to regarding requests (66) and (67) in Defendant’s 

Motion for Reconsideration. However, any other unresolved disputes must be identified by 

Defendant in the discovery motion filed by the December 31, 2013 deadline.

3

 If an issue is not 

 

3

The parties are also advised that the government has supplied defendant with the declaration of Warden Wiley 

Case 1:12-cr-00072-JCC-GSA Document 171 Filed 12/20/13 Page 4 of 5
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

5

raised in that motion, the Court will presume the disputes have been resolved by the parties.

III. Conclusion

Based on the above, it is hereby ordered that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration IS

DENIED as follows:

1) This Court’s November 20, 2013 order is clarified as set forth above, and

2) Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied as premature in light of the Court’s 

clarification. The briefing submitted by the parties with regard to discovery requests (66) and 

(67) will be considered by the Court following the December 31, 2013 deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

 

of USP administrative Maximum (“ADX”), dated May 11, 2009. The government has also provided the Court with 

additional information regarding Range 13. (Doc. 158). Both items relate to request (a) of Defendant’s Motion to

Compel filed on April 22, 2013. (Doc. 78, at pg. 2). Defendant is advised that any concerns related this material

must be included in any discovery motion filed by the December 31, 2013 deadline.

Case 1:12-cr-00072-JCC-GSA Document 171 Filed 12/20/13 Page 5 of 5