ORDER

(This Order Relates to Case No. 19-2372)

JULIE A. ROBINSON, Chief District Judge.

On January 17, 2020, Petitioner Mamoudou M. Kaba filed a motion for leave to conduct civil discovery (ECF No. 53). The court stayed briefing on the motion pending a decision on a similar motion filed by petitioner Petsamai Phommaseng.1 The court has now issued a decision on Phommaseng's motion.2 The court therefore resets the response deadline for Kaba's motion for leave to conduct discovery to March 4, 2020, and the reply deadline to March 11, 2020.

In their respective briefs, which must be limited to five double-spaced pages, the court asks the parties to address whether Kaba's motion has been mooted by the discovery permitted in the Phommaseng order. Although, of course, an analysis of whether Kaba has demonstrated good cause under Rule 6(a) to conduct discovery would be distinct from the application of Rule 6(a) to Phommaseng, as a practical matter the discovery Kaba requests will have been produced to the Federal Public Defender ("FPD") by the government in Phommaseng's case. Particularly given that the same attorneys are involved in nearly all of the § 2255 cases consolidated for discovery in Case No. 19-2491, on the surface it appears most efficient to allow any petitioner to use discovery obtained in another petitioner's case.3 However, the court would like the parties to address this issue, taking into account both legal and practical considerations. There is no impediment, of course, to particularized discovery in individual cases, such as requesting information about recordings involving the particular petitioner or about unique circumstances surrounding the particular petitioner's criminal case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.