Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-06089/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-06089-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1 

Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DESHAWN LEE CAMPBELL, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

RANDY GROUNDS, WARDEN,

 Respondent. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART

PETITIONER’S MOTION TO 

CONDUCT DISCOVERY

(Re: Docket No. 40-4)

 In this federal habeas proceeding, Petitioner Deshawn Lee Campbell, a state prisoner, has 

already obtained certain potentially exculpatory evidence from the Santa Clara County District 

Attorney’s Office pursuant to an order by Judge Freeman permitting limited discovery.

1

 Campbell 

now moves to conduct additional discovery by way of two subpoenas to third parties.

2

 The DA’s 

Office opposes. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is GRANTED-IN-PART.

 In 2009, a jury convicted Campbell of murdering San Jose Police Officer Jeff Fontana. 

Campbell is currently serving a sentence in state prison of life without the possibility of parole. In 

2012, after failing to obtain relief in state courts via direct and collateral appeal, Campbell filed a 

habeas petition in federal court. In February 2015, the DA’s Office disclosed to Campbell’s 

counsel an investigative report containing potentially exculpatory evidence. Specifically, the 

 

1 See Docket No. 32. 

2 See Docket No. 40-4. This motion was referred by Judge Freeman to the undersigned pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636. See Docket No. 64. 

Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 72 Filed 09/24/15 Page 1 of 5
2 

Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

report described 

, Campbell’s 

counsel believed that this evidence could be critical to habeas relief. Campbell therefore sought 

permission from this court to issue a subpoena on the DA’s Office for a variety of information 

related to . 

Judge Freeman found good cause to grant Campbell’s motion while preserving the DA’s 

Office’s right to move to quash,3 and Campbell served his subpoena. In response, Campbell’s 

counsel obtained more details about 

.

4

 Campbell now seeks 

permission to issue another subpoena for documents related to 

and the identities of these other witnesses.

 This motion again presents the court with the question of whether good cause justifies 

discovery. As Judge Freeman explained, for good cause a federal court can authorize discovery in 

a habeas proceeding.

5

 The petitioner must “present[] specific allegations showing reason to 

believe that the facts, if fully developed, could entitle him to relief.”6 The district court’s 

“discretion extend[s] to granting discovery with respect to unexhausted claims,” meaning claims 

that the petitioner has yet to exhaust in state postconviction proceedings.7 But this discretion is not 

unlimited.8 The Supreme Court has said that “[t]he state court is the appropriate forum for 

 

3 See Docket No. 32. 

4

 The DA’s Office did move to quash other demands in the subpoena. The undersigned granted 

that motion in part; Campbell has sought relief from that order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. See

Docket No. 67-4. 

5 See id. at 3-4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 6(a)).

6 Id. at 4.

7 Id. (citing Tennison v. Henry, 203 F.R.D. 435, 439 (N.D. Cal. 2001)).

8 See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 909 (1997) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district 

court’s decision on good cause).

Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 72 Filed 09/24/15 Page 2 of 5
3 

Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

resolution of factual issues in the first instance, and creating incentives for the deferral of 

factfinding to later federal-court proceedings can only degrade the accuracy and efficiency of 

judicial proceedings.”9 In light of this underlying principle, before allowing discovery related to 

unexhausted claims, federal courts have required a strong showing of good cause—in the form of a 

tight nexus between the requested discovery and the claim, the risk of loss of evidence or, 

preferably, both.10

 When Judge Freeman first permitted discovery in this case, she found that Campbell had 

established good cause because statements could corroborate a viable defense justifying 

relief, even though they related to unexhausted claims.

11 She also noted that “there [was] some 

urgency to pursuing the requested discovery” because 

.

12 However, as noted above, Judge Freeman expressly reserved to the DA’s 

Office the right to move to quash the subpoena.13 The DA’s Office did so, and the court granted 

that motion in large part.14 By that time, the DA’s Office had already produced , 

 

9 Keeney v. Tamayo-Reyes, 504 U.S. 1, 9 (1992), superseded by statute, Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2), as recognized in Williams v. Taylor, 

529 U.S. 420, 433-34 (2000); see also Williams, 429 U.S. at 436-437 (“Principles of exhaustion are 

premised upon recognition by Congress and the Court that state judiciaries have the duty and 

competence to vindicate rights secured by the Constitution in state criminal proceedings.”).

10 See, e.g., Saucedo v. Brazelton, Case No. 13-cv-01696, 2015 WL 4481795, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. 

July 22, 2015) (finding no good cause and denying any discovery related to unexhausted claims);

Phelps v. Alameida, Case No. 98-cv-02002, 2011 WL 175569, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2011) 

(denying petitioner leave to conduct discovery relevant to unexhausted claims because “petitioner’s 

first effort to obtain discovery should be in state court”); Beets v. McDaniel, Case No. 04-cv00085, 2007 WL 602229, at *3-8 (D. Nev. Feb. 20, 2007) (permitting some of the petitioner’s 

requested discovery relating to unexhausted claims in a death penalty case); Sherman v. McDaniel, 

333 F. Supp. 2d 960, 968-70 (D. Nev. 2004) (denying a habeas petitioner’s request for discovery 

for lack of good cause because he had not yet exhausted his claims in state court); Tennison, 203 

F.R.D. at 440-44 (permitting limited discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a) related to unexhausted 

claims). 

11 See Docket No. 32 at 4 (citing Tennison, 203 F.R.D. at 439). 

12 Id. at 4-5. 

13 See id. at 5.

14 See Docket No. 65. 

Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 72 Filed 09/24/15 Page 3 of 5
4 

Case No. 5:12-cv-06089-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART PETITIONER’S MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 The court found that these 

developments significantly reduced the urgency of Campbell’s request, to the extent that the good 

cause Judge Freeman had found—which rested in part on that urgency—no longer existed.

15

 With these standards in mind, the court finds that Campbell has shown good cause with 

respect only to some of the additional discovery he seeks. Broadly speaking, Campbell wishes to 

issue subpoenas for two types of documents: (1) recordings, handwritten notes and investigative 

reports from any previous occasions

;

16 and (2) 

.

17 No good cause justifies discovery with respect to the first category of documents. 

Campbell’s counsel 

 Campbell seeks this portion of the subpoena only to bolster the reliability of the

evidence he has already gathered. Reliability is “a step removed” from the primary evidence 

18 Further, there is little risk of loss of evidence. These documents will not go 

stale if Campbell has to wait until his state habeas proceeding to obtain them.

 However, Campbell has shown good cause for the second part of the discovery he seeks. 

Testimony from may be critical to Campbell’s claim 

for habeas relief, and Campbell cannot develop this evidence without 

. In addition, there is 

considerably more urgency for this request. Witnesses’ memories fade, and the passage of time 

 

15 See id. at 3-4. 

16 See Docket No. 40-4, Subpoena to CDCR, Attachment A, at ¶¶ 1-3; id., Subpoena to Seaside 

PD, Attachment A, at ¶¶ 1-3. 

17 See id., Subpoena to CDCR, Attachment A, at ¶ 4.

18 Beets, 2007 WL 602229, at *7. 

Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 72 Filed 09/24/15 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 72 Filed 09/24/15 Page 5 of 5