Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00254-12/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 Judge Taft presided over the state habeas corpus proceedings 1

in petitioner’s case on referral by the California Supreme Court.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROBERTS, No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB DAD DP

Petitioner, CAPITAL CASE

v.

ORDER

ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden,

Respondent. 

 /

Pursuant to the court’s discovery order in this action (Doc.

No. 305), counsel for respondent submitted four banker’s boxes of

documents for in camera review. In addition, respondent’s counsel

provided a letter explaining, to some degree, the basis for

respondent’s assertion of privilege with respect to those voluminous

documents. In addition, pursuant to petitioner’s later unopposed

motion, the Solano County Superior Court submitted three envelopes

containing the bench notes of The Honorable Franklin R. Taft for in 1

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 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 retrospect, the court erred in agreeing to review such 2

voluminous documents in camera. The unprecedented nature of the

caseload in the Eastern District of California has been welldocumented in recent years. In light of the demands that such a

caseload places on the court, it was simply not practical to undertake

an in camera review of this magnitude. The unfortunate result of the

court’s error in agreeing to do so, has been the delay of these

proceedings. It is not an error that the undersigned will repeat in

the future. 

2

camera review by this court. (See Doc. No. 364.) The court has

finally completed its review of those documents.2

In many respects, it turned out to be quite difficult for

this court to determine what specific documents among the boxes of

records submitted for review might be relevant to petitioner’s broadranging habeas claims. Having engaged in that time-consuming task the

court has doubts whether many of the documents reviewed, particularly

those in the central files of the various inmate witnesses, have 

significant relevance to the presentation and consideration of

petitioner’s claims. However, the court is mindful that it clearly

cannot have the same appreciation of potential relevance of

information that counsel for the parties would have. Accordingly,

where a doubt existed, the court has erred on the side of ordering

production under the terms of the protective order set forth below.

Accordingly, respondent will be directed to provide to

petitioner’s counsel the following documents, identified by their

Bates-stamped numbers, subject to the protective order detailed below.

R Documents

1

3-7

29-66

71

72-74

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 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

3

R Documents (cont.)

86-105

114-203

218-231

337-392

432-450

505-552

559-567

594-610

615

619-621

710-712

717-1033

1052-1064

1098-1119

1143-1182

1185-1293

1419-2203

2245-2653

2821-2857

2926

2972

2974

2984-2985

4337-38

L Documents

1-42

66-95

104-107

137-141

148-154

178-473

478-481

485

495

503

507-510

512-516

519-525

527-530

535-539

545-551

556-559

563-566

569

572-577

580-617

620-621

631-702

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 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

4

L Documents (cont.)

733-780

795-812

821-878

920-970

992-1239

RK Documents

782-1156

1203-1213

1255-57

1262-64

1267-1273

1277-1281

1289-1306

1338-1367

1371-1394

1421-1573

1580-1583

1586

1589

1591-1598

1600

1620-1622

1625

1627-1635

1778-1781

1783-1817

1823-1827

1833-1926

1931-1952

1954-2088

H Documents

1

42

57-58

C Documents

1-3

22-25

28

43-46

52-83

92

118-123

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 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

C Documents (cont.)

134-145

189-193

Y Documents

1-15

84-106

134-178

181-434

436-453

458-478

481-492

507-583

591-630

633-643

665-676

680-688

701-927

In Camera Hearing Transcripts

February 5, 1982 & February 19, 1982

February 26, 1982

October 21, 1982

October 22, 1982

October 25, 1982

November 2, 1982

January 6, 1983

January 24, 1983

None of the documents produced to petitioner’s counsel shall

be revealed to any person other than counsel for petitioner and

experts or other persons working under counsel’s direct supervision in

connection with these habeas corpus proceedings or otherwise without

prior authorization of the court ordered on motion pursuant to twentyone days notice, filed and served on counsel for the State. Absent

such prior authorization, all of the documents ordered produced by

this order, and information contained in those documents, shall be

kept confidential and not made public. Absent such prior

authorization of the court, none of these documents, or information

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 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

 In the event counsel believe that the appropriate protective 3

order with respect to these documents should include additional or

different terms, counsel are encouraged to meet and confer and submit

to the court a stipulated protective order for consideration.

6

contained therein, shall be transferred, revealed or 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. Petitioner’s counsel shall insure that any person

working under their direct supervision to whom counsel reveals

documents and information covered by this protective order is provided

a copy of this protective order and signs a statement that he or she

has read and understands their obligations with respect to this

protective order. Counsel for petitioner shall retain these signed

statements. Nothing in this order prohibits any person or agency

acting on behalf of the State from notifying any individuals to whom

to whom the discovery documents pertain that the documents have been

produced pursuant to this discovery order. California Civil Code §

1798.24(k). 

3

The court has reviewed all of the remaining documents

submitted for in camera review, including the bench notes of the

Honorable Franklin R. Taft submitted by the Solano County Superior

Court (see Doc. No. 364), and has concluded that those documents do

not contain information relevant to the presentation or resolution of

petitioner’s claims in these federal habeas proceedings.

Counsel for respondent shall produce the documents

identified above to petitioner’s counsel within twenty-one days of the

date of this order. It was originally contemplated that counsel for

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 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

 If counsel wishes to set the briefing schedule by way of 4

proposed stipulation and order, they may do so after consulting with

Courtroom Deputy Pete Buzo regarding available hearing dates. If such

a proposed stipulation and order is submitted, the status conference

will be vacated. 

7

petitioner would file a motion for evidentiary hearing within 180 days

after the production of any documents ordered produced following this

in camera review. However, in recent correspondence counsel for

petitioner has indicated that they now intend to file their motion for

evidentiary hearing much sooner. Accordingly, for the purpose of

setting a briefing schedule with respect to petitioner’s anticipated

motion for evidentiary hearing, the case is also now set for status

conference, with telephonic appearance authorized, on Thursday,

September 16, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. before the undersigned.4

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 12, 2010.

ddad1/orders.capital

robertsincamerareview.wpd

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 367 Filed 08/13/10 Page 7 of 7