Salcido v. Wong
Filing
40
ORDER RE: BITTAKER PROTECTIVE ORDER; DIRECTIONS TO PETITIONER. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 10, 2012. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2012)
Case3:09-cv-00586-MMC Document29-2 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SEAN K. KENNEDY (No. 145632)
Sean_Kennedy@fd.org
Federal Public Defender
MARTA VANLANDINGHAM (No. 251661)
Marta_VanLandingham@fd.org
MICHAEL D. WEINSTEIN (No. 262179)
Michael_Weinstein@fd.org
Deputy Federal Public Defenders
321 East 2nd Street
Los Angeles, California 90012-4202
Telephone: (213) 894-2854
Facsimile: (213) 894-0081
Attorneys for Petitioner
RAMON BOJORQUEZ SALCIDO
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RAMON BOJORQUEZ SALCIDO,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of
)
California State Prison at San Quentin, )
)
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
No. CV 09-00586 MMC
DEATH PENALTY CASE
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE:
BITTAKER PROTECTIVE
ORDER ; DIRECTIONS TO
PETITIONER
Case3:09-cv-00586-MMC Document29-2 Filed08/09/12 Page2 of 6
1
GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, Petitioner’s Motion for a Bittaker
2
Protective Order is GRANTED. Pursuant to Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th
3
Cir. 2003), this Court enters the following Protective Order regarding: (1) documents
4
and materials, including declarations, derived from the trial team or trial counsel files
5
that Salcido provides to Respondent during this habeas action; (2) any related
6
testimony provided at an evidentiary hearing in this matter; and (3) any reference to
7
such documents or testimony in the parties’ pleadings submitted to this Court.
8
1.
To the extent that the Court will order the production of
9
documents and discovery in this matter that Petitioner contends are
10
subject to claims of privilege or protected from disclosure by the
11
attorney work product doctrine, and to the extent that this Court will
12
order Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file, including the files of other defense
13
team members, be produced to the Respondent (or Petitioner turns over
14
such documents voluntarily by filing any part of the material as
15
supporting evidence in this action), such discovery shall be subject to
16
this Protective Order and shall remain confidential and sealed. Further,
17
to the extent that this Court will order the taking of the depositions of
18
trial counsel, other members of the defense team, Petitioner, if such
19
deposition is granted, and Petitioner's experts, such discovery shall be
20
subject to this Protective Order and shall remain confidential and sealed.
21
If an evidentiary hearing is held in this case, any testimony by Petitioner,
22
Petitioner’s experts, trial counsel, and any trial defense team member
23
shall be subject to this Protective Order and shall remain confidential
24
and sealed. Petitioner contends that the testimony provided by these
25
witnesses is subject to claims of privilege and/or protected from
26
disclosure by the attorney work-product doctrine.
27
28
If Respondent disputes any such designation of privilege, Respondent may move
the Court for an order exempting such material from this Order.
2.
All privileged documents and testimony produced to
Respondent in this action may be used only for purposes of litigating
1
Case3:09-cv-00586-MMC Document29-2 Filed08/09/12 Page3 of 6
1
this habeas corpus proceeding by: (a) Petitioner and the members of the
2
legal team, i.e., lawyers, paralegals, investigators, and support staff,
3
assigned to Salcido v. Chappell by the Office of the Federal Public
4
Defender, and persons retained by Petitioner’s counsel to litigate this
5
matter, including, but not limited to, outside investigators, consultants
6
and expert witnesses; and (b) Respondent and the members of the legal
7
team, i.e., lawyers, paralegals, investigators, and support staff, assigned
8
to Salcido v. Chappell by the California Department of Justice, Attorney
9
General’s Office, and persons retained by Respondent’s counsel to
10
litigate this matter, including, but not limited to, outside investigators,
11
consultants and expert witnesses. This Protective Order extends to
12
members of the legal teams and all persons retained by the parties to
13
litigate this matter. All such individuals shall be provided with a copy
14
of this Protective Order.
15
3.
Except for disclosure to the persons and agencies described
16
in Paragraph 2, disclosure of the contents of the documents and
17
testimony and the documents and testimony themselves shall not be
18
made to any other persons or agencies, including, but not limited to,
19
prosecutorial agencies and law enforcement personnel, without the
20
Court’s order. If Respondent contends that he needs to disclose
21
Petitioner’s privileged material to outside prosecutorial agencies, outside
22
law enforcement personnel, experts, consultants, deponents or witnesses
23
in order to investigate or respond to Petitioner’s habeas claims,
24
Respondent shall provide to Petitioner’s counsel (a) the identity of the
25
individual/s to whom access is going to be provided, and (b)
26
Respondent’s reasons therefor. Petitioner shall notify Respondent
27
within three court days of his non-opposition or objection to
28
Respondent’s proposal. If Petitioner objects to Respondent’s proposal,
2
Case3:09-cv-00586-MMC Document29-2 Filed08/09/12 Page4 of 6
1
and if the parties cannot resolve their differences within three additional
2
court days, Petitioner shall provide his written objection to Respondent
3
within three further court days. Respondent shall file and serve a
4
document containing Petitioner’s objections and Respondent’s responses
5
within three additional court days. The Court shall rule on Petitioner’s
6
objections before the privileged materials are disclosed. Any person
7
obtaining access to the privileged material pursuant to this process shall
8
also be given a copy of this Protective Order and shall sign a statement
9
agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order.
10
4.
Documents and testimony that Petitioner contends are
11
privileged shall be clearly designated as such by labeling the documents
12
or testimony in a manner that does not prevent reading the text of the
13
document.
14
5.
All documents and testimony designated as privileged by
15
Petitioner that are submitted to this Court shall be submitted under seal
16
in a manner reflecting their confidential nature and designed to ensure
17
that the privileged material will not become part of the public record.
18
Should an evidentiary hearing be held in this matter, privileged
19
testimony shall be clearly designated as such by marking the transcripts
20
of the proceeding. Any pleading, deposition transcript, discovery
21
response or request, or other papers served on opposing counsel or filed
22
or lodged with the court that contains or reveals the substantive content
23
of the privileged matter shall be filed under seal, and shall include a
24
separate caption page that includes the following confidentiality notice
25
or its equivalent:
26
//
27
//
28
//
3
Case3:09-cv-00586-MMC Document29-2 Filed08/09/12 Page5 of 6
1
TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
2
THIS PLEADING OR DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL
3
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND IS NOT
4
TO BE OPENED NOR ITS CONTENTS DISPLAYED OR DISCLOSED
FILED ON DECEMBER 10, 2012,
5
6.
If privileged documents or documents containing privileged
6
matters are filed with this Court, they shall be filed with the Clerk of this
7
Court in sealed envelopes prominently marked with the caption of the
8
case and the foregoing Confidentiality Notice. The Clerk of the Court is
9
directed to maintain the confidentiality of any documents filed in
10
accordance with the above. Insofar as reasonably feasible, only
11
confidential portions of the filings shall be under seal; and the parties
12
shall tailor their documents to limit, as much as is practicable, the
13
quantity of material that is to be filed under seal. When a pleading or
14
document contains only a limited amount of privileged content, a party
15
may file a complete copy under seal and at the same time file on the
16
public record an additional, redacted version of the document, blocking
17
out the limited matter comprising the confidential portions.
18
accordance with General Order 62(5) and
shall
7.
Petitioner’s disclosure of documents from trial counsel’s
19
file in this action, and any related testimony by Petitioner or members of
20
Petitioner’s trial team at a deposition or evidentiary hearing in this case,
21
does not constitute a waiver of Petitioner’s rights under the Fifth and
22
Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution in the event of any
23
retrial.
24
8.
This order shall continue in effect after the conclusion of
25
the habeas corpus proceedings and specifically shall apply in the event
26
of a retrial of all or any portion of Petitioner’s criminal case. Any
27
modification or vacation of this order shall only be made upon notice to
28
and an opportunity to be heard from both parties.
4
Case3:09-cv-00586-MMC Document29-2 Filed08/09/12 Page6 of 6
No later than five court days from the date of this Order, Petitioner shall e-file under seal his
1
2
3
4
5
9.
Salcido’s unredacted Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
10.
Exhibits 59, 65, 69-70, and 75-80 shall remain under seal.
in accordance with General Order 62(5) ("If a motion to file under seal is granted in part or in
shall remain under seal. full, the requesting party will e-file the document under seal
according to the procedures outlined in the FAQs on the ECF website.")
No later than five court days from the date of this Order, Petitioner shall e-file his redacted
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the public record.
Dated: December 10, 2012
HONORABLE MAXINE M. CHESNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
Presented by:
/S/ Michael Weinstein
MICHAEL WEINSTEIN
Deputy Federal Public Defender
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?