Stokes v. Byars
ORDER granting 112 Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by Sammie Louis Stokes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 6/27/2017. (mwal)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sammie Louis Stokes, #5069,
Bryan P. Stirling, Director, South
Carolina Department of Corrections;
Joseph McFadden, Lieber Correctional
C/A No.: 1:16-845-RBH-SVH
This matter comes before the court on the joint motion of the parties requesting the
court issue an order addressing privileged attorney-client matter disclosures. [ECF No.
112]. The court grants the parties’ motion.
To the extent Petitioner’s PCR counsel reasonably believe necessary, PCR counsel
shall provide testimony and supporting documents in defense of their representation of
the Petitioner at his state PCR action. Should any document or other material contain
protected information that does not relate to the allegations of ineffective assistance of
counsel, PCR counsel must redact that information from an otherwise responsive
document or other material, if the documents address other aspects of counsel's
representation of the Petitioner that are not necessary for resolution of the Petitioner's
claims about counsel's conduct and their communications. Moreover, the attorney-client
privilege, which attaches to the communications between the Petitioner and his former
counsel, shall not be deemed automatically waived in any other federal or state
proceeding. Outside of this proceeding, the Respondent is prohibited from otherwise
using the interviews and information from potential witnesses, and/or the affidavits,
information, and documents disclosed by the Petitioner's former counsel, without further
order of a court of competent jurisdiction or a written waiver by the Petitioner.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
June 27, 2017
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?