(DP) Sanders v. Davis ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD L. SANDERS, Case No. 1:92-cv-05471-JLT 12 Petitioner, DEATH PENALTY CASE 13 v. FURTHER SCHEDULING OF TENTATIVE ORDER 14 RON BROOMFIELD, Warden of San Quentin State Prison, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 On November 7, 2022, the Court issued a tentative order regarding respondent’s 19 notification filed on September 26, 2022, that information protected from disclosure pursuant 20 to a 2007 Protective Order in this case had been released to representatives of the Kern 21 County District Attorney’s Office. (See Doc. 417.) 22 Petitioner timely responded to the tentative order, but he did so without the benefit of a 23 list of protected and unprotected documents released to district attorney representatives that 24 was subsequently provided by respondent. (See Docs. 418-420.) Petitioner requested that 25 respondent be ordered to provide an inventory of each and every document released to the 26 district attorney representatives, including Protected Information. (See Doc. 419.) Petitioner 27 further requested that the Court “postpone its decision regarding sanctions or other remedial orders, including an order precluding the People of the State of California from proceeding 1 | with a retrial of the penalty phase[,]” pending his reasonable opportunity to review of such an 2 |inventory. (Ud. at 4.) 3 Respondent timely replied to petitioner’s response. (See Doc. 420.) Respondent stated 4 |that petitioner had been served with and possessed a list of the released documents, including 5 |Protected Information. (/d.) Respondent requested that petitioner be directed to file any 6 | amended response to the tentative order within a reasonable time. Ud.) Respondent further 7 |requested that thereafter, the Tentative Order finding that sanctions are not warranted, be 8 finalized. Ud. citing Doc. 416; Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 826 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding 9 |sufficient a sanction that returned parties to the status quo ante following inadvertent violation 10 discovery protective order).) 11 The Court, having reviewed the parties’ filings, and the record, finds good cause to 12 | provide further scheduling of the tentative order. 13 Accordingly, within fifteen (15) days of the service date of this order, petitioner may 14 |file an amended response to the Court’s November 7, 2022 tentative order. Within fifteen 15 |(15) days of the filing of petitioner’s amended response, if any is filed, respondent’s counsel 16 |may file a reply thereto. If petitioner fails timely to file an amended response, then the 17 |Court’s tentative ruling shall become its final ruling on the matter. Any filing by the parties 18 | that discloses Protected Information shall be filed under seal. 19 The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve copies of this order upon counsel for 20 | petitioner, Nina Rivkind, and counsel for respondent, Supervising Deputy Attorney General 21 |Kenneth Sokoler and Assistant Attorney General Lewis Martinez. 22 73 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _November 28, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28