Roberts v. Ayers, et al

Filing 367

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/12/10 ORDERING that a Status Conference is set for 9/16/2010 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 27 before Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd.(Dillon, M)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Judge Taft presided over the state habeas corpus proceedings in petitioner's case on referral by the California Supreme Court. 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROBERTS, Petitioner, v.

No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB DAD DP CAPITAL CASE ORDER

ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden, Respondent. / Pursuant to the court's discovery order in this action (Doc. No. 305), counsel for respondent submitted four banker's boxes of documents for in camera review. In addition, respondent's counsel

provided a letter explaining, to some degree, the basis for respondent's assertion of privilege with respect to those voluminous documents. In addition, pursuant to petitioner's later unopposed

motion, the Solano County Superior Court submitted three envelopes containing the bench notes of The Honorable Franklin R. Taft1 for in

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

camera review by this court.

(See Doc. No. 364.) The court has

finally completed its review of those documents.2 In many respects, it turned out to be quite difficult for this court to determine what specific documents among the boxes of records submitted for review might be relevant to petitioner's broadranging habeas claims. Having engaged in that time-consuming task the

court has doubts whether many of the documents reviewed, particularly those in the central files of the various inmate witnesses, have significant relevance to the presentation and consideration of petitioner's claims. However, the court is mindful that it clearly

cannot have the same appreciation of potential relevance of information that counsel for the parties would have. Accordingly,

where a doubt existed, the court has erred on the side of ordering production under the terms of the protective order set forth below. Accordingly, respondent will be directed to provide to petitioner's counsel the following documents, identified by their Bates-stamped numbers, subject to the protective order detailed below. R Documents 1 3-7 29-66 71 72-74 In retrospect, the court erred in agreeing to review such voluminous documents in camera. The unprecedented nature of the caseload in the Eastern District of California has been welldocumented in recent years. In light of the demands that such a caseload places on the court, it was simply not practical to undertake an in camera review of this magnitude. The unfortunate result of the court's error in agreeing to do so, has been the delay of these proceedings. It is not an error that the undersigned will repeat in the future. 2
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

R Documents (cont.) 86-105 114-203 218-231 337-392 432-450 505-552 559-567 594-610 615 619-621 710-712 717-1033 1052-1064 1098-1119 1143-1182 1185-1293 1419-2203 2245-2653 2821-2857 2926 2972 2974 2984-2985 4337-38 L Documents 1-42 66-95 104-107 137-141 148-154 178-473 478-481 485 495 503 507-510 512-516 519-525 527-530 535-539 545-551 556-559 563-566 569 572-577 580-617 620-621 631-702 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

L Documents (cont.) 733-780 795-812 821-878 920-970 992-1239 RK Documents 782-1156 1203-1213 1255-57 1262-64 1267-1273 1277-1281 1289-1306 1338-1367 1371-1394 1421-1573 1580-1583 1586 1589 1591-1598 1600 1620-1622 1625 1627-1635 1778-1781 1783-1817 1823-1827 1833-1926 1931-1952 1954-2088 H Documents

19 20 21 C Documents 22 23 24 25 26 1-3 22-25 28 43-46 52-83 92 118-123 ///// 4 1 42 57-58

1 2 3

C Documents (cont.) 134-145 189-193 Y Documents

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 In Camera Hearing Transcripts 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 February 5, 1982 & February 19, 1982 February 26, 1982 October 21, 1982 October 22, 1982 October 25, 1982 November 2, 1982 January 6, 1983 January 24, 1983 None of the documents produced to petitioner's counsel shall be revealed to any person other than counsel for petitioner and experts or other persons working under counsel's direct supervision in connection with these habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise without prior authorization of the court ordered on motion pursuant to twentyone days notice, filed and served on counsel for the State. Absent 1-15 84-106 134-178 181-434 436-453 458-478 481-492 507-583 591-630 633-643 665-676 680-688 701-927

such prior authorization, all of the documents ordered produced by this order, and information contained in those documents, shall be kept confidential and not made public. Absent such prior

authorization of the court, none of these documents, or information 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

contained therein, shall be transferred, revealed or used in any way or for any purpose except in connection with the litigation of the claims presented in the petition for writ of habeas corpus pending before this court. Petitioner's counsel shall insure that any person

working under their direct supervision to whom counsel reveals documents and information covered by this protective order is provided a copy of this protective order and signs a statement that he or she has read and understands their obligations with respect to this protective order. statements. Counsel for petitioner shall retain these signed

Nothing in this order prohibits any person or agency

acting on behalf of the State from notifying any individuals to whom to whom the discovery documents pertain that the documents have been produced pursuant to this discovery order. 1798.24(k).3 The court has reviewed all of the remaining documents submitted for in camera review, including the bench notes of the Honorable Franklin R. Taft submitted by the Solano County Superior Court (see Doc. No. 364), and has concluded that those documents do not contain information relevant to the presentation or resolution of petitioner's claims in these federal habeas proceedings. Counsel for respondent shall produce the documents identified above to petitioner's counsel within twenty-one days of the date of this order. It was originally contemplated that counsel for California Civil Code §

In the event counsel believe that the appropriate protective order with respect to these documents should include additional or different terms, counsel are encouraged to meet and confer and submit to the court a stipulated protective order for consideration. 6

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

petitioner would file a motion for evidentiary hearing within 180 days after the production of any documents ordered produced following this in camera review. However, in recent correspondence counsel for

petitioner has indicated that they now intend to file their motion for evidentiary hearing much sooner. Accordingly, for the purpose of

setting a briefing schedule with respect to petitioner's anticipated motion for evidentiary hearing, the case is also now set for status conference, with telephonic appearance authorized, on Thursday, September 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. before the undersigned.4 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 12, 2010.

ddad1/orders.capital robertsincamerareview.wpd

If counsel wishes to set the briefing schedule by way of proposed stipulation and order, they may do so after consulting with Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo regarding available hearing dates. If such a proposed stipulation and order is submitted, the status conference will be vacated. 7

4