Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00507/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-00507-34/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

 After some argument and apparent confusion regarding just what petitioner sought to

1

protect, petitioner proposed an order with his reply brief that would protect only testing materials

(as distinguished from testing data or results) from disclosure to the public. Mar. 23, 2010 Reply

(Docket No. 322). The parties stipulated, and this court ordered, vacating the hearing on

petitioner’s motion and submitting the matter on the papers. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES D. RIEL, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-01-0507 LKK KJM

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr.,

 Warden of San Quentin

 State Prison, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

On February 17, 2010, the court ordered petitioner to provide to respondent “all

documents relied upon by Dr. Froming in this case.” (Docket No. 308.) Petitioner seeks an

order protecting from public disclosure all neuropsychological testing materials provided to

respondent. Petitioner relies largely on the Ethics Code of the American Psychological 1

/////

/////

Case 2:01-cv-00507-MCE-SCR Document 341 Filed 04/13/10 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

 At the time this order is being signed, this standard is available via the internet. See 2

http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx#911.

 Respondent also relies upon a decision of this court. The issue in that case involved the 3

raw test data rather than the testing materials used by the expert. Tibbs v. Adams, No. CIV S 05-

2334 LKK KJM, 2008 WL 2633233, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. June 25, 2008).

2

Association (“APA”). With respect to the distribution of testing materials, the Code provides:

The term test materials refers to manuals, instruments, protocols,

and test questions or stimuli and does not include test data as

defined in Standard 9.04, Release of Test Data. Psychologists make

reasonable efforts to maintain the integrity and security of test

materials and other assessment techniques consistent with law and

contractual obligations, and in a manner that permits adherence to

this Ethics Code.

APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standard 9.11 (2002). 

2

Many of respondent’s arguments are not applicable to the revised protective order

proposed by petitioner in his reply. Respondent does contend that petitioner lacks legal support

to protect testing materials from public disclosure. However, the cases respondent cites in his

brief support a limited protective order consistent with the one petitioner now seeks. In Taylor v.

Erna, No. 08-10534-DPW, 2009 WL 2425839 at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 2009), the court resolved

the tension between a party’s need for discovery of psychological testing materials and the

expert’s ethical concerns by adopting a “non-disclosure protective order.” Similarly, in Frazier v.

Board of County Commissioners, No. 08-cv-02730-WYD-BNB, 2010 WL 447785 at *3 (D.

Colo. Feb. 3, 2010), the court recognized the importance of a protective order to protect the

“trade secrets” of the psychological tests used by a party’s expert. The court in Frazier indicated 3

that the protective order limited “the disclosure of confidential information to only persons

involved in the litigation and for use only in connection with the litigation.” 2010 WL 447785 at

*4. The court finds this language, which is similar to language used in prior protective orders

issued in this case, to be more appropriate than petitioner’s attempt to limit access to only

respondent’s counsel and a “qualified mental health professional.” See Nov. 24, 2003 Prot.

Order at 3:8-10 (Docket No. 128); Aug. 13, 2009 Supp. Prot. Order at 4:6-9 (Docket No. 263). 

Case 2:01-cv-00507-MCE-SCR Document 341 Filed 04/13/10 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

3

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

as follows:

1. Petitioner’s March 2, 2010 Motion for Protective Order is granted in part.

2. The following protective order shall apply to all neuropsychological testing

materials (“testing materials”) – defined as manuals, instruments, protocols, or test questions or

stimuli – that have been or will be produced by petitioner to respondent's counsel. Respondent’s

counsel may not disclose these testing materials to anyone besides persons working under the

direct supervision of respondent’s counsel, including respondent’s mental health expert(s). 

Counsel wishing to file any document containing or consisting of information revealing the

contents of the testing materials shall seek court approval in advance to file the document

publicly but with confidential information redacted, and with an unredacted corresponding

version of the same document filed under seal. See Local Rules 140, 141. None of the testing

materials shall be used in any way or for any purpose except in connection with the litigation of

the claims presented in the petition for writ of habeas corpus pending before this court. 

3. This protective order governs only the parties’ filings. It does not predetermine

the status of the testing materials during any evidentiary hearing testimony or in dispositions of

this court. 

DATED: April 12, 2010.

riel exp prot.or

Case 2:01-cv-00507-MCE-SCR Document 341 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3