Filed: Mar. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Defendant Urbina's motion, joined by Defendants Rebolledo, Venegas, Cid-Salinas, Aguilar, Hernandez, Gallardo, and Gonzalez, effectively seeks two things: (1) an order setting a case management schedule in an effort to effect the scheduling of the Department of Justice's Capital Review Committee ("Committee"); and (2) an order granting expedited discovery of materials such that Defend
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . Defendant Urbina's motion, joined by Defendants Rebolledo, Venegas, Cid-Salinas, Aguilar, Hernandez, Gallardo, and Gonzalez, effectively seeks two things: (1) an order setting a case management schedule in an effort to effect the scheduling of the Department of Justice's Capital Review Committee ("Committee"); and (2) an order granting expedited discovery of materials such that Defenda..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING SCHEDULING ORDER AND EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
Defendant Urbina's motion, joined by Defendants Rebolledo, Venegas, Cid-Salinas, Aguilar, Hernandez, Gallardo, and Gonzalez, effectively seeks two things: (1) an order setting a case management schedule in an effort to effect the scheduling of the Department of Justice's Capital Review Committee ("Committee"); and (2) an order granting expedited discovery of materials such that Defendants can prepare for their presentation to the Committee.
With respect to the requested discovery order, there simply is no legal basis to require accelerated production in anticipation of meetings scheduled before the Committee. Such sessions are within the purview of the Department of Justice and do not constitute a triggering event for discovery scheduling. See United States v. Furrow, 100 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (holding, in the context of the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel, that the "death penalty authorization process is not a constitutionally critical stage").
As to case management scheduling, it is certainly preferable for all concerned to develop a full mitigation record for Committee review. That said, questions regarding the timing of Committee proceedings are internal to the Department of Justice. Accordingly, Defendant Urbina's motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
