Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08139/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08139-1/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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Ray White, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-8139-PCT-GMS

DEATH PENALTY CASE

PROTECTIVE ORDER

 

Petitioner has moved for a protective order to limit use of privileged information

disclosed in connection with litigation of his competency to communicate rationally with

counsel in these proceedings. (Dkt. 91.) In particular, the Court’s expert, Dr. Sally Johnson,

has asked to observe Petitioner interact with his counsel. Respondents do not oppose a

protective order for privileged information disclosed to the Court’s expert during her

competency evaluation but contend that Petitioner’s proposed order is unnecessarily broad.

(Dkt. 95 at 3.) Respondents also contend that information developed with respect to

Petitioner’s competency may be relevant to some of Petitioner’s underlying habeas claims

and that, if the Court finds Petitioner competent to proceed with his habeas petition, this

information should not be precluded from use in defending against these claims. (Id. at 4-5.)

On April 19, 2010, the Court heard argument on Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner’s

counsel acknowledged that disclosure of “the data or other information” considered by their

testifying expert was required under Rule 26(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Case 3:08-cv-08139-SPL Document 99 Filed 04/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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 - 2 -

Procedure. After extensive discussion, the parties stipulated that any privileged

communications between Petitioner and his counsel overheard by Dr. Johnson during the

course of her observation of Petitioner’s conference(s) with his counsel should be protected

from use for any purpose other than determining Petitioner’s competency. With respect to

other materials disclosed during litigation of Petitioner’s competency, the parties agreed that

Petitioner reserved the right to both assert that such materials are privileged and that such

information should not be used to litigate Petitioner’s habeas claims or in any future state

court proceedings, pursuant to Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Protective (Dkt. # 91) Order is

granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any communications between Petitioner and his

counsel overheard by the Court’s expert, Dr. Sally Johnson during the course of her

observation of Petitioner’s conference(s) with his counsel, shall be used only in the context

of determining Petitioner’s present competency to assist habeas counsel and for no other

purpose. Any such privileged statement or communications documented or testified to by

Dr. Johnson shall not be offered or admitted into evidence by or against Petitioner on any

issue other than Petitioner’s current competency. This Order shall continue in effect after

the conclusion of these habeas proceedings and shall specifically apply in connection with

any future state court proceedings, except that either party maintains the right at any time to

request modification or vacation of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with respect to any other information disclosed

during the litigation of Petitioner’s current competency, the parties retain the right to seek

its use or to preclude its use in either the litigation of his underlying habeas claims or any

future state court proceedings.

Case 3:08-cv-08139-SPL Document 99 Filed 04/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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 - 3 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all materials provided by the parties to Dr.

Johnson shall be maintained by Dr. Johnson, as well any colleague or other mental health

expert with whom she consults, in a confidential manner.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than May 3, 2010, the parties shall

provide to the Court any materials either party believes are relevant to a preliminary

determination concerning Petitioner’s competency or the need for a full-blown competency

evidentiary hearing. Any request to file these materials under seal shall specifically address

the public’s common law right of access to judicial documents. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (observing that the presumption of access

is overcome only by showing “sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so”).

DATED this 21st day of April, 2010.

Case 3:08-cv-08139-SPL Document 99 Filed 04/22/10 Page 3 of 3