Cox v. Ylst

Filing 171

PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/14/15 regarding discovery prior to Rule 27 depositions. (See order for further details) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
MICHAEL A. COX,
10
Petitioner,
11
v.
12
WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison
13
Respondent.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:04-CV-0065-MCE-CKD
DEATH PENALTY CASE
PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
DISCOVERY PRIOR TO RULE 27
DEPOSITIONS

15
16
17

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of September 22, 2015 (Doc. 169), and good cause
appearing, see Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 717, n.1 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc),

18

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

For purposes of the habeas corpus litigation in this matter, all discovery of trial attorney

20

files granted to respondent shall be deemed confidential. In any event, and subject to the further

21

limitations set forth herein, the documents and material in the trial counsel files (hereinafter,

22

“documents”) may be used only by representatives from the Office of the California Attorney

23

General and only for purposes of any proceedings incident to litigating the claims presented in

24

the petition for writ of habeas corpus pending before this court.

25
26

1
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Cox v. Warden 2:04-CV-0065-MCE-CKD

1

Until such time as this Court may order otherwise, the documents are to be used by

2

respondent solely for preparation and conduct of depositions of witness for whom this court has

3

previously granted petitioner leave to depose for purposes of preservation of evidence pursuant

4

to Rule 27. The documents may not be used, cited, or relied upon by respondent in any habeas

5

corpus or other related proceedings in the state courts, nor in any other proceedings in this court

6

until such time as this court has ordered otherwise.

7

Disclosure of the contents of the documents and the documents themselves may not be

8

made to any other persons or agencies, including any other law enforcement or prosecutorial

9

personnel or agencies, without an order from this Court. This order extends to respondent and all

10

persons acting on behalf of respondents in this proceeding, including but not limited to persons

11

employed by the Office of the California Attorney General, persons working on this matter who

12

are employed by California governmental divisions other than the Attorney General, persons

13

retained by respondent for any investigative or consulting work on this matter, and any expert

14

consultants or witnesses assisting respondent.

15

This order shall continue in effect after the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings

16

and specifically shall apply in the event of a retrial of all or any portion of petitioner’s criminal

17

case, except that either party maintains the right to request modification or vacation of this order

18

upon entry of final judgment in this matter.

19

Dated: October 14, 2015

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
Cox protective or

24
25
26

2
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Cox v. Warden 2:04-CV-0065-MCE-CKD