Vieira v. Ylst

Filing 125

ORDER denying without prejudice Respondent's request to seal documents signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/9/2012. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

RICHARD J. VIEIRA,

9
10
11

Petitioner,
vs.
KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Acting Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,

12
Respondent.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:05-cv-1492-AWI
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE RESPONDENT’S
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

14

This matter is before the Court on the request of Respondent Kevin Chappell, as Acting

15

Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”), to lodge under seal certain documents. Those

16

documents pertain to California Penal Code section 987.9 funding requests of the defense attorney

17

representing Petitioner Richard John Vieira (“Vieira”) at trial. The grounds for the request are two

18

fold. First, the documents have been maintained under seal in the state court; and second, subdivision

19

(d) of section 987.9 requires it.

20

The Court is not persuaded that either of these grounds justify sealing the lodgment of the

21

documents under consideration. This follows from a review of the statutory language of subdivision

22

(d) of section 987.9. In its entirety this subdivision provides:

23
24
25
26

The confidentiality provided in this section shall not preclude any court from
providing the Attorney General with access to documents protected by this section
when the defendant raises an issue on appeal or collateral review where the recorded
portion of the record, created pursuant to this section, relates to the issue raised.
When the defendant raises that issue, the funding records, or relevant portions
thereof, shall be provided to the Attorney General at the Attorney General’s request.
In this case, the documents shall remain under seal and their use shall be limited solely
to the pending proceeding.

27
28
05dp1492.O DenyW ithoutPrejM o2Seal.Vie.wpd

1

1

In Vieira’s case, it is true that the Attorney General (on behalf of the Warden), did in fact

2

request section 987.9 material from the state courts in order to bolster the Warden’s defense against

3

Vieira’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The mention of “any court” in this subdivision (d),

4

however, does not regulate the conduct of federal courts. Rather, it refers to state courts, which

5

initially are in possession of section 987.9 funding request materials. Section 987.9 does not any way

6

regulate federal court conduct.

7

Second, this Court may take note of the fact that section 987.9 information has been published

8

in court cases for years within the Ninth Circuit and California District Courts. It is evidence used

9

to prove and disprove the adequacy of trial counsel’s trial preparation (including consultation with

10

experts and ancillary service providers). See Ainsworth v. Woodford, 268 F.3d 868, 877 (9th Cir.

11

2001); Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995).

12

Further, with the exception of trial counsel’s financial information (that is, copies of his law

13

firm checks for which he sought reimbursement), there is no independent basis to maintain

14

confidentiality of these documents. The only case remotely analogous is Bittaker v. Woodford, 131

15

F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003).

16

In that case, the respondent warden sought to discover the petitioner’s trial counsel files to

17

defend against the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The petitioner objected

18

because the trial counsel files included attorney work product as well as evidence of attorney-client

19

communications which could convey inculpatory information. The district court agreed to order the

20

discovery, as limited by a protective order precluding distribution of materials in state court should

21

the federal court grant a writ of habeas corpus and the case were retried. Id. at 717. The Ninth

22

Circuit affirmed, holding that while fairness requires a habeas petitioner to waive the attorney-client

23

privilege when advancing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the waiver should not extend

24

beyond the federal proceedings into state court should the state conviction or sentence be vacated.

25

Id. at 722, 726. The court instructed that when granting the state warden’s discovery request of trial

26

counsel files, district courts should “enter appropriate orders clearly delineating the contours of the

27

limited waiver before the commencement of discovery, and strictly police those limits thereafter.” Id.

28

at 728.

Bittaker is inapposite to Vieira’s case.

05dp1492.O DenyW ithoutPrejM o2Seal.Vie.wpd

2

The issue of inculpatory matters, or even

1

attorney–client communications are not discernible from financial records. Moreover, the issue of

2

how much the State of California paid Vieira’s first trial counsel would be irrelevant to any issues

3

raised at a new capital trial were habeas relief granted.

4

In light of the foregoing, that the Warden’s request to lodge section 987.9 related documents

5

is denied without prejudice. If the documents are necessary for the Court’s resolution of Vieira’s

6

federal habeas corpus petition, the Court will accept public lodgement of the documents, or the

7

parties may bring additional authorities to the Court for consideration of the sealing request on a

8

renewed motion.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated May 9, 2012

11

/s/ Anthony W. Ishii
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
05dp1492.O DenyW ithoutPrejM o2Seal.Vie.wpd

3