Salcido v. Wong
Filing
39
ORDER GRANTING 29 MOTION FOR BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 10, 2012.(mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13
14
RAMON BOJORQUEZ SALCIDO,
15
Petitioner,
16
17
18
Case Number 09-00586 MMC
DEATH-PENALTY CASE
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER
KEVIN CHAPPELL,
Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison,
Respondent.
19
20
On August 9, 2012, Petitioner, a condemned inmate at San Quentin State Prison, filed a
21
Motion for Protective Order pursuant to Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003). On
22
August 22, 2012, Respondent filed an Opposition. On August 29, 2012, Petitioner filed a Reply.
23
For the reasons set forth below, the Petitioner’s motion will be granted.
24
25
Background
The instant habeas proceeding was initiated on February 9, 2009, when Petitioner asked
26
the Court to appoint counsel and to stay his execution pending the completion of said action.
27
The next day, the Court granted Petitioner’s requests and referred the matter to the Court’s
28
Selection Board for recommendation of counsel. Petitioner was appointed counsel on August
ORDER GRANTING MOTION BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
10, 2011. Following the Court’s resolution of issues pertaining to equitable tolling, the Court
2
directed Petitioner to file a finalized petition by August 10, 2012.
3
On August 9, 2012, Petitioner lodged with the Court a complete, unredacted version of
4
his Petition and exhibits, as well as a proposed redacted version of the documents. He also filed
5
an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of the Petition, which filing is the subject
6
of a separate order.
7
By the instant motion, Petitioner requests the Court issue a Bittaker protective order, see
8
Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003), to ensure that all privileged attorney-client
9
communications and work product information disclosed in his Petition be used only for
10
purposes of litigating his Petition. He argues that without a protective order, Respondent may
11
potentially benefit from a windfall of information and unfair advantage should he be retried.
12
Respondent contends the Bittaker decision has no application outside the confines of
13
court-compelled discovery, that a protective order is not necessary because California law
14
affords Petitioner adequate protection, and the public’s right of access would be infringed if a
15
protective order were issued. Respondent further contends Petitioner’s request for a protective
16
order is foreclosed under Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011).
17
Discussion
18
In Bittaker, the Ninth Circuit upheld a protective order that precluded the use of the
19
petitioner’s privileged materials “for any purpose other than litigating the federal habeas petition,
20
and barr[ed] the Attorney General from turning them over to any other persons or offices,
21
including, in particular, law enforcement or prosecutorial agencies.” See Bittaker, 331 F.3d at
22
717. In approving the protective order, the Ninth Circuit recognized that while the “fairness
23
principle” requires a litigant to make a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege when he
24
puts the lawyer’s performance at issue during the course of litigation, id. at 718-19, courts must
25
“closely tailor[] the scope of the waiver to the needs of the opposing party in litigating the claim
26
in question,” id. at 720. The Ninth Circuit explained that two prevailing considerations justified
27
extending protections to privileged information disclosed during habeas litigation. First, the
28
Ninth Circuit noted that a broad waiver rule, i.e., one that does not protect privileged
2
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
information, “would no doubt inhibit the kind of frank attorney-client communications and
2
vigorous investigation of all possible defenses that the attorney-client and work product
3
privileges are designed to promote.” Id. at 722. Second, the Ninth Circuit wanted to ensure that
4
both the prosecution and defense would be put “back at the same starting gate” if the petitioner
5
won habeas relief, id. at 722-23, and “allowing the prosecution at retrial to use information
6
gathered by the first defense lawyer – including the defendant’s statements to his lawyer – would
7
give the prosecution a wholly gratuitous advantage,” id. at 724.
8
Although Bittaker dealt with a protective order in the context of court-compelled
9
discovery, the Ninth Circuit has since made clear that Bittaker’s holding “extends to the entire
10
habeas litigation, not to pretrial discovery only.” See Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 820, 822
11
(9th Cir. 2012) (holding, for purposes of Fifth Amendment protection, “[i]t was not necessary for
12
[petitioner] to show that his testimony was compelled”).
13
Respondent’s other arguments advocating the denial of a protective order likewise are
14
unavailing. To the extent respondent argues that California law already affords Petitioner
15
adequate protection, see People Ledesma, 39 Cal. 4th 641 694-95 (2006), the grant of a
16
protective order would simply reinforce any protections accorded to Petitioner under state law.
17
Next, Respondent’s reliance on Pinholster is misplaced. Pinholster dealt with a narrow issue –
18
the scope of the record appropriate for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). See Pinholster, 131
19
S. Ct. at 1398 (describing issue as “whether review under § 2254(d)(1) permits consideration of
20
evidence introduced in an evidentiary hearing before the federal habeas court”). The decision
21
has no bearing on the propriety of Petitioner’s request for a protective order. Finally, the
22
public’s right of access does not favor the denial of a request for a protective order. See Bittaker,
23
331 F. 3d at 725 n.9 (noting narrow waiver of privilege strikes appropriate balance among
24
interests of habeas petitioner, prosecution, and public).
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
//
3
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER
1
Conclusion
2
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Motion is hereby GRANTED.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: December 10, 2012
5
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?