Campbell v. Grounds

Filing 65

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO QUASH (REDACTED) re 35 . Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on September 9, 2015. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2015)

1
2
3
REDACTED

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

DESHAWN LEE CAMPBELL,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

v.

RANDY GROUNDS, WARDEN,

14

Respondent.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
QUASH
(Re: Docket No. 35)

Previously in this habeas proceeding, this court authorized Petitioner Deshawn Lee
16
Campbell, a state prisoner, to issue a subpoena upon the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office for
17

potentially exculpatory evidence. 1 The DA’s Office moved to quash the subpoena, and the court

18
held a hearing on the motion on August 18, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
19
GRANTED-IN-PART.
20
In 2009, a jury convicted Campbell of the first degree murder of San Jose Police Officer
21
Jeff Fontana. Campbell is currently serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In
22
2012, after failing to obtain relief in state courts via direct and collateral appeal, Campbell filed a
23
habeas petition in federal court. In February 2015, the DA’s Office disclosed to Campbell’s
24
counsel an investigative report containing potentially exculpatory evidence.
25
26
27
1

28

See Docket No. 32.

1
Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO QUASH

1
2

, Campbell’s
counsel believed that this evidence could be critical to habeas relief.

3

Campbell filed a motion seeking further discovery in the form of the subpoena at issue here.

4

This court granted that request, but explicitly reserved to the DA’s Office the right to move to

5

quash the subpoena. 2 The DA’s Office has now done exactly that.

6

Campbell’s subpoena seeks the following four items:

7

1.

8
9
2.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

3.

12
13
14

4.

15
16
17

With respect to paragraph 1 of the subpoena, the parties agreed at the hearing that the DA’s

18

Office had complied to the satisfaction of Campbell’s counsel. Therefore, the motion to quash

19

paragraph 1 of the subpoena is DENIED as moot.

20

With respect to paragraph 2 of the subpoena, the DA’s Office has produced

21
22
23
24
2

See id. at 5.

3

Docket No. 26-6 at Attachment A.

4

See Docket No. 38-1 at 2.

5

See Docket No. 35-1 at 12-14.

25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO QUASH

1
2
3
4

All the evidence Campbell seeks to uncover relates to unexhausted claims that Campbell

5

must pursue in state court. The court permitted discovery in this habeas proceeding because it

6

feared that delaying discovery would lead to the loss of evidence—

7

Those reasons do not

8

apply to evidence within the control of the DA’s Office. No exigency justifies further discovery in

9

federal court. Therefore, the motion to quash paragraph 2 of the subpoena is GRANTED.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

With respect to paragraph 3 of the subpoena, again the parties agree that the DA’s Office

11

already has provided nearly all relevant information. There are only two exceptions. The first is

12
13
14

The DA’s Office

15

has already agreed to provide both of the above if the court orders this information to be excluded

16

from public filings. 9 The court does so now. The motion to quash paragraph 3 of the subpoena

17

thus is GRANTED-IN-PART.

18
19

With respect to paragraph 4 of the subpoena, the DA’s Office argues that it has no
information regarding the

20

. To the extent that other law

21

enforcement agencies have such information, the DA’s Office argues that it has no possession,

22

custody or control over it. Again, Campbell has not established an immediate need to obtain this

23
24
6

See Docket No. 35-1 at 3-4.

7

See Docket No. 32 at 4-5.

8

See Docket No. 35-1 at 7; Docket No. 38-1 at 2.

9

See Docket No. 38-1 at 2.

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO QUASH