When we last checked in on Quezada v. Brown -- the groundbreaking habeas case in which authorization to file a second petition and a request for discovery were granted -- the State had moved for reconsideration of the DJ's order granting discovery.
The good news is that, back on October 19, the DJ denied Respondent's motion for reconsideration on both procedural and substantive grounds. First, the DJ faulted Respondent for filing the motion in an untimely fashion. The DJ rejected all of Respondent's excuses for the late filing.
More important, the DJ rejected the arguments on the merits. And it's an important decision. As mentioned in the prior post, the State had argued that Pinholster had changed the law and discovery was no longer appropriate in a habeas corpus proceeding as the 2254(d)(1) analysis only focuses on the facts that were before the state court.
The DJ disagreed. First, the DJ concluded that Pinholster did not change the law on discovery as that decision did not mention discovery, the rule that covers discovery (RGHCCUS2254 6) or even mention the leading Supreme Court case on the issue, Bracy v. Gramley. The DJ believed that, if Respondent was correct, it would render Rule 6 meaningless and would require the DJ to find that Bracy is no longer good law. The DJ also noted that petitioner's claims was pursuing claims beyond a 2254(d)(1) claim.
Thus, the DJ joins those cases that have reached a similar conclusion (Conway v. Hauk (from SD Ohio) & Brady v. Hardy (from ND Ill), both cited in the DJ's order). But there is a definite split developing here. I would think that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on this someday. But for now, at least in Quezada, discovery continues.*
*Just to note, discovery continued while the motion for reconsideration was pending. I guess it just continues to continue.