Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00306/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00306-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JUNIOR WEBSTER, No. CIV.S-93-0306 LKK DAD DP

Petitioner,

v. ORDER RE RESPONDENT’S

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY 

S.W. ORNOSKI, Acting Warden

of the California State 

Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent. DEATH PENALTY CASE

 /

This capital habeas action came before the court on May 11,

2007, for hearing on respondent’s motion for leave to conduct

discovery with respect to trial counsel’s files. James S. Thomson

and Timothy J. Foley appeared on behalf of petitioner. Deputy

Attorney General Patrick J. Whalen appeared on behalf of respondent. 

Having considered all written materials submitted in connection with

the motion, and after hearing from the parties, the motion will be

granted in part with petitioner’s counsel being directed to deliver

the requested documents to chambers for in camera review.

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 7
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

 In this regard, respondent has requested that subpoenas be 1

issued to both trial counsel requiring them to produce their files.

2

THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Through this motion respondent seeks all files of trial

counsel relating to petitioner’s capital murder trial that are in the

possession of either trial counsel or the Office of the Federal

Defender. Respondent seeks such discovery on the grounds that by 1

alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to the

preparation of the penalty phase of his trial, petitioner has waived

the attorney-client privilege as to all communications with his

allegedly ineffective trial attorneys. Specifically, respondent

argues that it is vital that they be allowed to review trial

counsel’s files to determine what facts were known to them and what

steps they took in preparing for the penalty phase and in order to

defend against petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim. 

Petitioner’s counsel represents that they are in possession

of all trial counsel’s files and, subject to a protective order, are

voluntarily making available for respondent’s review the vast

majority of those files. However, petitioner’s counsel has

identified approximately 200 pages of the approximately four bankers

boxes of trial counsel’s files which they believe are not subject to

discovery. The disputed categories of documents are those responsive

to the following discovery requests by respondent: (1) Materials

relating to expert psychiatric and psychological examinations,

interviews and testing of petitioner at the time of trial; (2)

documents obtained by trial counsel from counsel representing

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 7
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

 Petitioner also argues that both the work product and 2

psychotherapist-patient privileges are in place and independently

protect these documents from disclosure.

3

petitioner in connection with his 1974 and 1977 convictions in the

State of Washington for burglary and assault; and (3) documents

relating to California Penal Code § 987.9 funding requests other than

the billings of the trial investigator.

Petitioner acknowledges that the attorney-client privilege

may be waived when a habeas petitioner raises a claim of ineffective

assistance of counsel. However, petitioner asserts that the waiver

is limited by, and must be closely tailored to, the scope of the

claims presented. In this regard, petitioner contends that while he

has claimed ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the

penalty phase of his trial, he has not presented any evidence of

psychiatric diagnosis or mental illness in connection with that

claim. Thus, he concludes, materials relating to expert psychiatric

and psychological examinations and interviews at the time of his

trial are not relevant to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim

and he has not waived the privilege with respect to those materials.2

Likewise, petitioner argues that at his trial he did not dispute the

prior convictions and in the petition before this court he has not

claimed that his counsel was ineffective with regard to those prior

convictions. Accordingly, he argues that the records sought are

simply not relevant to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim

and he has not waived the privilege with respect thereto. Finally,

petitioner advances the same argument with respect to the § 987.9

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 7
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

 At the hearing on the motion respondent’s counsel indicated 3

that in light of the representations of counsel for petitioner that

they possessed all of trial counsel’s files, respondent wished to

reserve the request that subpoenas be issued to trial counsel

requiring the production of those files. 

4

records other than those relating to the billings of his trial

investigator.

In reply, respondent argues that all materials in trial

counsel’s files must be disclosed once a claim of ineffective

assistance of trial counsel is presented. Respondent contends that

the waiver of the attorney-client privilege in such circumstances is

unlimited. Respondent claims that this is the case because in order

to inquire into the reasonableness of counsel’s action under the

Strickland standard, it is imperative to know everything that counsel

knew at the time as well as exactly what investigation counsel had

conducted and what counsel had learned as a result. Specifically,

respondent contends that knowing the result of psychiatric or

psychological investigation which trial counsel conducted is

extremely relevant to evaluating the reasonableness of the additional

steps counsel did or did not take in preparing for the penalty phase

of petitioner’s trial. 

3

ANALYSIS

The court finds unpersuasive respondent’s argument that the

inclusion of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a habeas

petition constitutes an unlimited waiver of the attorney-client

privilege. The scope of the implied waiver of the attorney-client

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 4 of 7
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

5

privilege in this context has been specifically addressed by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as follows:

[T]he doctrine of implied waiver allocates

control of the privilege between the judicial

system and the party holding the privilege.”

Privileged Communications, 98 Harv. L.Rev. at

1630. The court imposing the waiver does not

order disclosure of the materials categorically;

rather, the court directs the party holding the

privilege to produce the privileged materials if

it wishes to go forward with its claims

implicating them. The court thus gives the

holder of the privilege a choice: If you want to

litigate this claim, then you must waive your

privilege to the extent necessary to give your

opponent a fair opportunity to defend against it.

See, e.g., Amlani, 169 F.3d at 1195 (holding that

courts must evaluate “whether allowing the

privilege would deny the opposing party access to

information vital to its defense” (internal

quotation marks omitted)); Chevron, 974 F.2d at

1162. Essentially, the court is striking a

bargain with the holder of the privilege by

letting him know how much of the privilege he

must waive in order to proceed with his claim.

The first is that the court must impose a waiver

no broader than needed to ensure the fairness of

the proceedings before it. Because a waiver is

required so as to be fair to the opposing side,

the rationale only supports a waiver broad enough

to serve that purpose. Courts, including ours,

that have imposed waivers under the fairness

principle have therefore closely tailored the

scope of the waiver to the needs of the opposing

party in litigating the claim in question. See,

e.g., Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394,

405, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976)

(recognizing the need to ensure that the “balance

between petitioners' claim[ ] of ... privilege

and plaintiffs' asserted need for the documents

is correctly struck”); Amlani, 169 F.3d at 1196

(holding that “only those documents or portions

of documents relating to the [claim asserted by

the client] [should be] disclosed”); Greater

Newburyport Clamshell Alliance v. Pub. Serv. Co.,

838 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir.1988) (holding that the

client need reveal only 721 information “for

which defendants have so far shown a true need

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 5 of 7
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

6

and without which they may be unfairly prejudiced

in their defense”); see also Mueller &

Kirkpatrick § 5.31, at 553 (suggesting that “in

applying the doctrine of implied waiver by claim

assertion, courts must be careful to target only”

those privileged materials without which the

adverse party would be unfairly prejudiced).

Bittaker v. Woodford 331 F.3d 715, 720-21 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(emphasis added). See also Mason v. Mitchell, 293 F. Supp. 2d 819,

829 (N.D. Ohio 2003) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim limited

to penalty phase and respondent therefore precluded from obtaining

documents from trial counsel’s files relating to the guilt phase of

petitioner’s trial).

In order for this court to closely tailor the scope of the

implied waiver so that only those documents, or portions of

documents, relating to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim

asserted by petitioner are disclosed, the court will conduct an in

camera review of the approximately 200 pages of documents being

withheld by petitioner’s counsel. See United States v. Amlani, 169

F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Kerr v. United States Dist.

Court, 426 U.S. 394, 405 (1976) (“ in camera review of ... documents

is a relatively costless and eminently worthwhile method to insure

that the balance between petitioners’ claims of irrelevance and

privilege and plaintiffs' asserted need for the documents is

correctly struck.”)

Accordingly, petitioner’s counsel shall submit the

documents in question to chambers for in camera review by May 24,

2007. Following the in camera review the court will issue an order

requiring the disclosure of those documents or portions of documents, 

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7

if any, sought by respondent that are not protected by the asserted

privilege(s).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2007.

orders.capital/webster0306.trialcounseldisc

Case 2:93-cv-00306-LKK-DAD Document 336 Filed 05/22/07 Page 7 of 7