Roberts v. Ayers, et al

Filing 467

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 2/4/13 ORDERING that respondent will not be ordered to provide petitioner access to the documents submitted to this court on January 10, 2013 for in camera review. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the copies of those documents submitted to the court by respondent for in camera review.(Dillon, M)

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
12
13

Petitioner,

No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB DAD

vs.

DEATH PENALTY CASE

WARDEN, San Quentin State
Prison,

14
15
16
17

Respondent.

ORDER
/

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

18

has submitted for the court’s in camera review copies of several documents from the prosecutor’s

19

trial files. (See Dkt. No. 463.) Respondent contends the documents are not relevant to

20

petitioner’s discovery requests and are protected by California’s Official Information Privilege.

21

The court granted petitioner’s discovery request for “the following records from

22
23
24
25
26

the files of trial prosecutor Charles Kirk:”
i. Any and all documentation of communications between
prosecutor Kirk (or investigative agents working on the case) and
Alameda County officials regarding Robert Hayes.
ii. Any and all background information regarding Cade,
Long, Rooks, Yacotis, Hayes and/or Gardner that was obtained or
compiled prior to their testifying at petitioner’s trial.
1

1

iii. Any and all notes or memoranda regarding Cade, Long,
Rooks, Yacotis, Hayes and/or Gardner.

2
3

(Dkt. No. 460 at 9-10.) Respondent’s counsel states that, rather than provide only documents

4

strictly responsive documents to petitioner, respondent has elected to provide petitioner’s counsel

5

access to Mr. Kirk’s entire trial file, withholding only those documents submitted here for the

6

court’s in camera review.

7

The court need not reach the issue of whether or not the documents which have

8

presented by respondent for in camera review are protected from disclosure by any privilege.

9

After carefully reviewing those documents, the court finds they are neither relevant nor in any

10
11

way responsive to petitioner’s discovery requests which the court previously granted.
Accordingly, respondent will not be ordered to provide petitioner access to the

12

documents submitted to this court on January 10, 2013 for in camera review. The Clerk of the

13

Court is directed to file under seal the copies of those documents submitted to the court by

14

respondent for in camera review.

15

DATED: February 4, 2013.

16
17
18
19
20

roberts in cam docs.or2

21
22
23
24
25
26
2