Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_99-cv-02016-11/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

Ernest Valencia Gonzales, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-99-2016-PHX-SMM

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

The parties are preparing for an evidentiary hearing regarding Petitioner’s current

competency to assist habeas counsel pursuant to Rohan ex rel Gates v. Woodford, 334 F.3d

803 (9th Cir. 2003). Previously, the Court ordered each party’s mental health expert to file

a report regarding Petitioner’s mental competency. (Dkt. 111.) Following this submission,

the Court held a status hearing and ordered the mental health experts to disclose to opposing

counsel all underlying psychological testing data and any interview notes, statements, or

other information that were relied on and/or utilized by the experts in preparing their reports.

(Dkt. 131.) Petitioner has now filed a motion for additional discovery.

Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[a] judge may,

for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and may limit the extent of discovery.” Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2254

Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (emphasis added). Thus, unlike the usual civil litigant in

federal court, a habeas petitioner is not entitled to discovery “as a matter of ordinary course,”

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 137 Filed 04/13/07 Page 1 of 6
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 -

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997); see Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358

(9th Cir. 1993). Unlike a regular trial, during habeas proceedings, the district court has the

discretion to limit the scope of an evidentiary hearing, so long as the court gives the

petitioner an opportunity to present the relevant facts. See Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d

567, 607 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

the oral testimony of mental health experts at an evidentiary hearing, instead having the

parties cross-examine the experts by deposition and submit declarations and briefs regarding

areas of impeachment); see also Watts v. United States, 841 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1988).

Disclosure from Respondents’ Expert

First, Petitioner requests that Respondents provide omitted disclosure, asserting that

they have not properly disclosed all underlying psychological testing data. (Dkt. 134 at 3.)

Petitioner acknowledges that Respondents’ expert, Dr. Anna Scherzer, has provided 286

pages of disclosure; however, he contends she failed to disclose the standardized

psychological test questions utilized in her testing of Petitioner. (Dkt. 134 at 3.)

Respondents maintain that disclosure of such questions presents ethical issues for their expert

because the assessment materials are copyrighted; therefore, the questions had to be excised

because Petitioner’s counsel requested that Dr. Scherzer’s raw data be delivered to counsel’s

office rather than directly to Petitioner’s expert. Respondents further assert that the excised

answer sheets were disclosed with the understanding that Petitioner’s mental health expert

had access to the copyrighted assessment instruments used by Dr. Scherzer. Petitioner has

not asserted that his mental health expert does not have access to these materials. Therefore,

based on this record, the Court denies Petitioner’s request for additional disclosure regarding

Dr. Scherzer’s psychological testing. If Petitioner’s expert does not have access to the

copyrighted assessment instruments used by Dr. Scherzer, the Court orders Respondents to

direct Dr. Scherzer to disclose non-excised copies of her raw data directly to Petitioner’s

expert, Dr. Ralph Morris.

Second, Petitioner requests that the Court order Respondents to provide both an

improved version of the audiotape and a transcript of Dr. Scherzer’s interview with

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 137 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 6
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 -

Petitioner. Respondents acknowledge that recording conditions were not ideal and that they

also have requested that Dr. Scherzer provide them with a new copy of the audiotape. Once

Respondents are in receipt of this new audiotape, they are ordered to provide Petitioner with

a copy of it. The Court denies Petitioner’s request for production of a transcript of the

interview.

Third, Petitioner requests that Respondents disclose any additional notes Dr. Scherzer

obtained from her interviews with Arizona Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) personnel

as part of her psychological assessment of him, including the dates, times, and length of these

interviews. Respondents indicate that Dr. Scherzer already disclosed fourteen pages of notes

and that there are no additional notes. Therefore, this request is denied. 

Fourth, Petitioner requests an inventory of any materials in the possession of Dr.

Scherzer that should have been disclosed. Other than the standardized psychological

assessment questions and the issue with the audio tape, Respondents contend that there are

no additional materials subject to disclosure. Therefore, this request is denied.

Fifth, Petitioner requests that the Court authorize a deposition of Dr. Scherzer prior

to the evidentiary hearing. As the Court has already pointed out, in this habeas proceeding,

the Court is not obligated to treat the evidentiary hearing in the same manner as a trial. See

Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d at 607; see also Rule 6(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (stating

that discovery in habeas proceedings is limited). The Court finds that pre-hearing

depositions are unnecessary. At the evidentiary hearing, the parties will have the opportunity

to present the relevant facts and cross-examine the expert witnesses. Accordingly, the Court

will not authorize depositions of the mental health experts prior to the scheduled evidentiary

hearing. To the extent Petitioner’s counsel want to speak with Respondents’ expert prior to

the hearing, they are not prohibited from requesting an informal interview.

Last, Petitioner requests the production of other documents, including: 

1) Any and all drafts and/or edited copies of Dr. Scherzer’s report; 

2) Copies of any and all letters, emails and/or other correspondence Dr.

Scherzer has had with any representative of the state regarding a) Ernest

Gonzales and b) Dr. Scherzer’s qualifications to serve as an expert for the

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 137 Filed 04/13/07 Page 3 of 6
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

- 4 -

state;

3) Copies of any and all correspondence, emails and/or notes regarding

consultations between Dr. Scherzer and any other experts related to her

evaluation, diagnostic impressions and conclusions regarding Ernest Gonzales;

4) A list of all tests, books, published literature and any other publications Dr.

Scherzer relied upon in reaching her opinions or ruling out any diagnoses;

5) Any versions of Dr. Scherzer’s curriculum vitae (“C.V.”) or resume that

she may use for any other purpose;

6) A list, including case names and numbers, of every case in which Dr.

Scherzer has offered testimony either in court or at a deposition, within 4

years.

(Dkt. 134 at 4.) 

With regard to the third and fourth requests, the Court has already ordered both parties

to disclose “interview notes, statements or other information, that were relied upon and/or

utilized by the expert” in assessing Petitioner’s mental competency to assist counsel in these

proceedings. (Dkt. 131 at 1-2.) If Dr. Scherzer relied on or utilized information from other

mental health experts or publications in her evaluation of Petitioner, those materials are

subject to the Court’s disclosure order. Accordingly, Respondents shall consult with Dr.

Scherzer to ensure that any materials relied on or utilized by her in assessing Petitioner’s

competency be disclosed no later than April 30.

Regarding the remaining document requests, Petitioner asserts he needs this discovery

for possible cross-examination. The Court disagrees and finds no good cause for the

requests. None of these documents are necessary to provide Petitioner an opportunity to

present the relevant facts concerning his current mental state. See Williams, 384 F.3d at 607.

Disclosure from ADOC

Petitioner requests depositions of ADOC correctional officers who were interviewed

by Dr. Scherzer as part of her mental health evaluation of Petitioner and depositions of other

ADOC correctional officers who have had significant contact with Petitioner. (Dkt. 134 at

5.) Petitioner also requests production of personnel records regarding all of these individuals

as well as any ADOC mental health staff who have had contact with Petitioner. (Id.) 

As with the mental health experts, the Court finds that pre-hearing depositions of

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 137 Filed 04/13/07 Page 4 of 6
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

- 5 -

ADOC staff are unnecessary. However, the Court encourages Respondents to assist with

arranging interviews of these individuals, if requested by Petitioner’s counsel, so that counsel

can determine which fact witnesses, if any, they wish to call at the evidentiary hearing. With

regard to the personnel records of ADOC correctional officers and mental health staff, the

Court finds no good cause and the request is denied.

 Finally, Petitioner requests production of any ADOC policy, procedure, and training

manuals relied on by Dr. Scherzer; ADOC daily logs, blotter, administrative notes,

correspondence, and observations since death row was moved to SMU II; and ADOC

disciplinary, medical, mental health, and other records relating to Petitioner. The Court has

already ordered both parties to disclose “interview notes, statements or other information,

that were relied upon and/or utilized by the expert” in assessing Petitioner’s mental

competency to assist counsel in these proceedings. (Dkt. 131 at 1-2.) If in her evaluation Dr.

Scherzer relied on or utilized information from any ADOC policy, procedure, and training

manuals or from any daily activity and legal visitation logs, those materials are subject to the

Court’s disclosure order. Accordingly, Respondents shall consult with Dr. Scherzer to

ensure that any materials relied on or utilized by her in assessing Petitioner’s competency be

disclosed no later April 30.

Beyond any materials relied on by Dr. Scherzer, the Court finds that Petitioner’s

request for ADOC records is overly broad. Respondents state in their response that

Petitioner has disclosed nearly 5,000 pages of documents, most of which have been provided

by the prison, including Petitioner’s mental health records. (Dkt. 135 at 6.) It appears from

Petitioner’s motion and reply that the relevant items, for which he has arguably shown good

cause based on statements in Dr. Scherzer’s report, are the ADOC’s visitation and daily

activity logs. Petitioner does not indicate the relevant time period for these documents; the

Court concludes that the last twelve months visitation and daily activity logs are sufficient

for the limited purpose of determining Petitioner’s present mental competency. Accordingly,

the Court directs Respondents to provide these documents to Petitioner’s counsel by April

30. 

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 137 Filed 04/13/07 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

 Disclosure from Attorney General

With no explanation, Petitioner requests production of all electronic mail, personal

notes, and memos regarding Petitioner, as well as any written correspondence with ADOC

legal, administrative, clerical, correctional and medical staff; law enforcement and

prosecution agencies; experts; and any other person. This request is denied for lack of good

cause. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Petitioner’s motion

for discovery, as set forth above. (Dkt. 134.)

DATED this 12th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:99-cv-02016-SMM Document 137 Filed 04/13/07 Page 6 of 6