Roberts v. Ayers, et al

Filing 464

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/18/2013 ORDERING that within 7 days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a response addressing the bases for respondent's position with respect to the in camera submission. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

LARRY ROBERTS,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB DAD

vs.

DEATH PENALTY CASE

WARDEN, San Quentin State
Prison,

14
15

Respondent.

16

ORDER
/

17

As directed in the court’s November 14, 2012 order (Dkt. No. 460), respondent

18

has submitted for in camera review several documents from the prosecutor’s trial files. (See Dkt.

19

No. 463.) Respondent contends the documents are not relevant to petitioner’s discovery requests

20

and are protected by California’s Official Information Privilege.1

21

/////

22
23
24
25
26

1

It should be noted that respondent’s list of the documents submitted to the court is not
complete. Attached to the first document submitted to the court for in camera review, a May 12,
1988 memorandum from prosecutor Charles Kirk to Senior Assistant Attorney General John
Sugiyama, is a second memorandum. That second memorandum is also from Mr. Kirk to Mr.
Sugiyama and is also dated May 12, 1988. It is entitled “Recommendation of Rule Change to
Administrative Office of Courts/Appropriate Public Service.” It concerns the same subject
matter as the other documents submitted to this court for review.
1

1

Within seven days of the filed date of this order, petitioner shall file a response

2

addressing the bases for respondent’s position with respect to the in camera submission.

3

DATED: January 18, 2013.

4
5
6
7
8

dad1.capital
roberts.incamdocs.or1.wpd

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2