Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_91-cv-00882/USCOURTS-caed-2_91-cv-00882-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK BRUCE GORDON,

Petitioner, CIV. S-91-0882-LKK PAN

v. DEATH PENALTY CASE

JILL L. BROWN, Acting Warden

at San Quentin State Prison, ORDER

 

Respondent.

—NFN—

Respondent has provided to petitioner all records

requested but has withheld certain automated indices of records

described by respondent as a report that “appears to be the

district attorney’s efforts to organize the evidence in

preparation for trial” and, therefore attorney work product. 

Petitioner seeks the report to satisfy himself he has in fact

received all the relevant documents.

Respondent duly submitted the records to the court for in

camera review.

Case 2:91-cv-00882-MCE-JDP Document 316 Filed 05/25/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides:

[A] party may obtain discovery of documents . . .

otherwise discoverable . . . prepared in

anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for

another party or by or for that other party’s

representative . . . only upon a showing that the

party seeking discovery has substantial need of

the materials in the preparation of the party’s

case and that the party is unable without undue

hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of

the materials by other means. In ordering

discovery of such materials when the required

showing has been made, the court shall protect

against disclosure of the mental impressions,

conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an

attorney or other representative of a party

concerning the litigation. 

The robbery-murder was in December 1983 and the trial was

in May 1985. The first question is whether the protection

survives that trial. The literal language of the rule admits no

temporal limitation upon the protection. See F.T.C. v. Grolier,

462 U.S. 19, 25-26 (1983). The Third Circuit extends work

product protection to "closely related" subsequent litigation. 

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 604 F.2d 798, 803-04 (3d Cir.

1979). The Fourth and Eighth Circuits have held the protection

extends to all subsequent litigation, related or not. See United

States v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Murphy), 560 F.2d 326, 335 (8th

Cir. 1977); Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz,

487 F.2d 480, 484-85, n. 15 (4th Cir. 1973). The Fifth Circuit

implicitly extends the protection at least as far as the Third

Circuit. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d 966, 971 (5th

Cir. 1994) (“we need not choose between these two alternative

Case 2:91-cv-00882-MCE-JDP Document 316 Filed 05/25/05 Page 2 of 4
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

theories at this time because the documents sought to be

discovered in this case satisfy both.”). The view that the

protection survives, whether or not subsequent litigation is

“related,” serves the core purpose of the protection. The

seminal decision, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 497 (1947),

recognized that without such protection:

[I]t is essential that a lawyer work with a

certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary

intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. 

Proper preparation of a client’s case demands that

he assemble information, sift what he considers to

be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare

his legal theories and plan his strategy without

undue and needless interference. . . . Much of

what is now put down in writing would remain

unwritten. An attorney’s thoughts, heretofore

inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency,

unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably

develop in the giving of legal advice and in the

preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the

legal profession would be demoralizing. And the

interests of the clients and the cause of justice

would be poorly served.

329 U.S. at 510-511.

Accordingly, the court finds the protection survived

conclusion of the trial.

The court also finds that an index that is the product of

sifting what counsel considers to be the relevant from the

irrelevant facts, represents the “the mental impressions,

conclusions, opinions, [and] legal theories of an attorney” that

the rule absolutely protects, without or without justification. 

See Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985).

Even if the records submitted were deemed discoverable

upon a demonstration of “substantial need of the materials in the

Case 2:91-cv-00882-MCE-JDP Document 316 Filed 05/25/05 Page 3 of 4
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

preparation of the party’s case,” the court would find such a

need has not been shown as petitioner desires them only to pursue

speculation and by their nature the records would not well serve

that end and are likely to raise many more questions than they

would possibly answer.

Accordingly, respondent and related parties are not

required to provide copies of the indices to plaintiff.

So ordered.

Dated: May 25, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:91-cv-00882-MCE-JDP Document 316 Filed 05/25/05 Page 4 of 4