Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD L. SANDERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-92-5471-LJO-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Granting in Part Petitioner’s

and Respondent’s Motions for

Discovery and Denying

Petitioner’s Request for

Supplemental Protective Order

Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the Warden”) filed a motion for

discovery of the files from Sanders’ trial, the documents from trial counsel Frank

Hoover, defense investigators, and independent counsel Robert Cook. Petitioner

Ronald L. Sanders (“Sanders”) filed a motion for discovery of documents relating

to his time in Kern County jail and for an order directing the Warden to disclose

any exculpatory or material evidence as required under Brady v. Maryland, 373

U.S. 83, 84-85 (1963). Oppositions to the discovery motions and replies were

filed, and a hearing was held October 22, 2007, at 8:30 a.m., before the Honorable

Lawrence J. O’Neill. Eric Jorstad and Nina Rivkind, counsel for Sanders,

appeared by telephone, and Brian Alvarez, counsel for the Warden, appeared in

person.

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 247 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

OReDiscM tnsSnd 2

The Warden’s Motion for Discovery

 The Warden argues discovery of the entire trial file is necessary in order to

respond to Sanders’ claim that trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to

adequately investigate mitigation so as to persuade Sanders to change his mind

about not presenting evidence at the penalty phase. Sanders agrees the Warden

should be permitted to inspect and copy documents relating to the investigation,

preparation, and handling of the penalty phase of his trial, but objects to

disclosure of documents relating to the guilt phase. Sanders contends the

Warden’s request is overly broad and unjustified as it seeks irrelevant and

privileged guilt phase information. The Warden replies the stipulated protective

order is sufficient to protect Sanders’ rights, and that documents from the guilt

phase are necessary to evaluate whether trial counsel’s conduct was reasonable. 

The Warden does not dispute his inability to later disseminate any of Sanders’

disclosed privileged information, as he has conceded any protected information

cannot be used outside this habeas case. The Warden contends the stipulated

protective order adequately protects Sanders’ rights.

Ruling: Discovery of material relevant to penalty and to Sanders’

opposition to present a penalty defense is GRANTED. Sanders’ counsel is

ordered to submit one copy of any material deemed not relevant to these issues

for in camera review by the Court. The disputed documents shall be lodged

under seal within seven court days of the date of this order. Any explanation by

Sanders of why a document is submitted for in camera review must be served on

the Warden. An order will issue following the in camera review detailing why

and to what extent any of the submitted materials will be disclosed to the

Warden. All discovery shall be turned over within ten court days of the order

following in camera review.

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 247 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

OReDiscM tnsSnd 3

Sanders’ Motion for Discovery

Sanders seeks the records from his time in Kern County jail to discover

evidence of his mental or physical health and of any statements he made

regarding the penalty phase, but informal discovery has only revealed two

documents, the arrest/booking records and the disposition of his transfer to San

Quentin. The Warden asserts there are no other documents. Sanders seeks

clarification the Warden’s statement extends to the Kern County District

Attorney. Counsel for the Warden was unable to state whether any documents

were in the possession of the Kern County District Attorney.

Sanders also seeks an order directing the Warden, the Kern County District

Attorney, and the Kern County Sheriff’s Department to disclose any Brady

material. The Warden admits to a continuing obligation under Brady to disclose

exculpatory material, but argues that obligation does not grant Sanders discovery

powers and that Sanders cannot show good cause for an order compelling what

is already required. Sanders replies that if the Warden does not have suppressed

Brady material, he should say so. Counsel for the Warden stated that no Brady

material was contained in their files, but could not say whether that was true for

the Kern County District Attorney.

Ruling: The Warden shall file a supplemental declaration within seven

court days of the date of this order clarifying whether the Kern County District

Attorney has any documents which Sanders seeks. If such documents exist,

counsel for Sanders shall set a supplemental telephonic conference with the

Court to determine the necessary steps to obtain this information.

Sanders’ Request for Supplemental Protective Order

The parties agreed to a protective order regarding the disclosure of any

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 247 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

OReDiscM tnsSnd 4

privileged information during the prosecution of the pending ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, which was issued October 5, 2007. Sanders seeks a

supplemental protective order which will will provide: (1) a streamlined dispute

resolution procedure should Sanders object to discovery; (2) a procedure to

record any interviews which involve, or may involve, protected information; and

(3) an accounting by the Warden of all persons who have directly or indirectly

reviewed any protected information. 

The Warden objects to the supplemental provisions, asserting (1) a

procedure for dispute resolution is not needed because he is entitled to the entire

trial file and the stipulated protective order sufficiently protects Sanders; (2)

service of interview recordings on Sanders is not required because the Warden’s

alternative proposal of lodging the recordings with the Court will provide

Sanders with notice; and (3) an accounting is unnecessary since his counsel, as an

officer of the Court, can keep interviews within the confines of the protective

order and he has stipulated to the Court’s continuing jurisdiction to protect

Sanders’ interests.

Sanders replies the Warden has failed to explain why guilt phase

documents are necessary to the pending claim, and the dispute over the scope of

discovery of the trial files show a dispute resolution procedure is needed. 

Sanders further replies neither the recordings or the accounting are unduly

burdensome, and both are necessary tools to enforce the protective order. 

Counsel for Sanders admits there is no evidence that counsel for the Warden has

not acted in an ethical manner, but asserts the obtaining copies of interview

recordings and an accounting of persons who have reviewed the protected

information is necessary to monitor compliance with the protective order.

Ruling: Sanders’ request for a supplemental protective order is DENIED. 

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 247 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

OReDiscM tnsSnd 5

There is no reason to anticipate further disputes regarding discovery. Recording

the interviews and providing an accounting is not necessary as counsel for the

Warden is bound by his professional oath to uphold the terms of the protective

order, and no evidence has been shown which questions his ethics.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 22, 2007 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

United States District Judge

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 247 Filed 10/23/07 Page 5 of 5