Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02878/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02878-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUKE K. BOLTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 04-2878 JSW (JL)

ORDER AND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

BACKGROUND

The District Court has referred the parties’ objections to this Court’s Report and

Recommendation and Amendment to the Protective Order.

SUMMARY

In order to clarify the record and give the parties a final opportunity to address their

concerns, this Court orders the parties to brief the following issues within 21 days, of this

order, on or before May 11, 2006, simultaneously. Each party may respond to the other

within 10 days on or before May 21. The Court will conduct a hearing, on June 14, 2006 at

1:30 p.m.

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 105 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Page 2 of 4

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

The issues to be addressed are the following:

1. Discovery. This Court has previously ruled on Bolter’s requests in his third

set of interrogatories for locator information of the agents who conducted the interviews at

Pelican Bay. That request was denied as irrelevant.

However, it appears that counsel or Bolter had previously objected to the

government’s failure to answer interrogatories from sets nos. 1 and 2, although counsel for

Bolter made no mention of this matter at the hearing conducted in this Court on January

26, 2006.

Counsel for Bolter is directed to address any remaining concerns arising from the

government’s responses to interrogatories in sets 1, 2, and 3, as well as any other

discovery matters outstanding at this time.

2. Additional Documents. In her objections, counsel for Bolter refers to the offer

of this Court in the August, 2005 Report and Recommendation to consider any requests for

additional documents, on grounds of relevancy. Again, counsel failed to file any

appropriate motion and did not mention this matter at the last hearing.

Counsel may do so now, and the Court will conduct any necessary in camera review

in advance of the hearing. The government may object to disclosure of any additional

documents in its initial memorandum or wait to respond to Plaintiff’s.

3. Security concerns. The government refers to the offer of this Court in the

August, 2005 Report and Recommendation to conduct further hearings regarding any

specific security concerns with respect to the inmates and prison personnel whose

statements were ordered to be disclosed. The government also objects to this Court’s

Amendment to the Protective Order, stipulated previously by the parties and approved by

Judge White, to permit use of the documents at the trial of Bolter in state court.

This Court is of the opinion that the state court trial judge must be allowed to control

its own proceedings according to the dictates of the United States Constitution, and it is

inherently qualified to balance the security concerns of the prison and Mr. Bolter’s rights to

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 105 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Page 3 of 4

a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel. The Court notes that at least four trials

arising from the investigation of Powers, Garcia and Lewis have been conducted already - -

in state and federal courts. Presumably the trial judge in each instance considered these

issues. 

However, this Court is mindful of certain decisions of federal courts which have

specified conditions for use of federal documents or witnesses in state court proceedings. 

The Court points out that the witnesses providing the interviews in question were not

federal employees. However, a federal investigative agency, the FBI, obtained the

interviews and prepared the reports.

Accordingly, this Court will hear the Government’s concerns regarding security of the

state witnesses, but will expect the government to propose solutions consistent with this

Court’s recommendation that Bolter’s counsel may use the documents and information

contained therein in its defense of Bolter in state court. 

Under no circumstances, without further order of this Court, may counsel for Bolter

disclose any of the documents, their contents or the names of any witnesses to Mr. Bolter.

This Court asks counsel for the government to address the practical problem of this

Court presuming to manage a trial to be conducted in state court. The Government should

also address these additional questions: Did the witnesses or informants whose interviews

were recorded by the FBI receive either express or implied assurances of confidentiality?

What circumstances would justify any inference of confidentiality for any informant or

witness to whom no express assurance of confidentiality was given? Have any informants

or witnesses who have been identified in these interviews waived confidentiality by

previously testifying in a related proceeding? In general, how should the Court balance Mr.

Bolter’s Constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland against the security and privilege

concerns of the FBI?

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 105 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Page 4 of 4

CONCLUSION

In short, the parties may have a final opportunity to address their concerns, including

but not limited to: (1) Plaintiff’s remaining discovery issues; (2) the Government’s security

concerns; (3) Plaintiff’s request for additional interview reports, and (4) the Government’s

objection to this Court’s amendment to the protective order.

This Court notes that the state trial of Bolter has been delayed considerably, while

this matter has been pending. This action should be resolved as soon as possible, so that

the state court may schedule a meaningful trial date. Accordingly, the parties are directed

to identify any additional concerns they may have at this time, so that this Court may rule

promptly.

Fundamentally this action is sui generis. Neither counsel has cited a single similar

case, in which a federal court has been asked to regulate discovery in a state criminal

proceedings. The Administrative Procedure Act has limited applicability. This Court’s

previous disclosure recommendation is grounded in the United States Constitution and is

intended to avoid the undermining effect of the government’s failure to provide Brady

material on any potential verdict.

However, once the federal court orders such relief on Constitutional grounds and

furnishes some guidance for the use of these materials, the federal court’s intrusion into

state court affairs must end, and the state court be trusted to exercise its judgement with

respect to its own processes.

DATED: April 19, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-02878-JSW Document 105 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 4