Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00219/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00219-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Ray Brown
Petitioner
James A. Yates
Respondent

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES RAY BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB-HC

PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR PETITIONER’S 

TRIAL COUNSEL’S FILE

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER AND

FRESNO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S 

OFFICE’S REQUESTS TO QUASH THE 

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S. § 2254. Petitioner is represented in this action by Lisa M. Sciandra, Esq, and 

Assistant Federal Defender Jerome Price, Esq, of the Office of the Federal Defender. 

Respondent is represented in this action by Deputy Attorney General Justain Riley, Esq., of the 

Office of the California Attorney General. 

On August 20, 2015, a hearing on the production of documents was held to discuss 

Respondent’s subpoena duces tecum for Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file from the Fresno County 

Public Defender’s Office, the custodian of the file. Mr. Price appeared on behalf of Petitioner, 

Mr. Riley appeared on behalf of Respondent, and Gary Shinaver, Esq., appeared on behalf of the 

Fresno County Public Defender’s Office. Having considered the arguments presented at the 

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 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

27

28

2

August 20, 2015 hearing, as well as the Court’s file, the Court issues the following order.

II.

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

Respondent issued a subpoena duces tecum for Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file to the 

Fresno County Public Defender’s Office and the hearing for the production of documents was set 

for August 20, 2015. In the Court’s August 12, 2015 order, the Court noted that Petitioner could 

move for a protective order or other review by the Court if Respondent issued a subpoena duces 

tecum. The Fresno County Public Defender’s Office did not file a motion to quash the subpoena, 

but raised grounds for quashing the subpoena at the hearing. The Fresno County Public 

Defender’s Office argued that turning over Petitioner’s trial counsel’s entire file to Respondent’s 

counsel requires disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work 

product privilege. Petitioner’s counsel also did not file a motion to quash the subpoena, but 

echoed the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office’s arguments at the hearing. Respondent 

agreed to abide by any protective order. 

On timely motion, the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or 

modify a subpoena that: (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; (ii) requires a person to 

comply beyond the geographical limits specified in Rule 45(c); (iii) requires disclosure of 

privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or (iv) subjects a person 

to an undue burden. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3)(A). Here, Petitioner and the Fresno County Public 

Defender’s Office asserted attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege as reasons 

that the Court should quash the subpoena duces tecum.1 

However, it is well-established that a petitioner waives the attorney-client privilege when 

the petitioner puts the lawyer’s performance at issue during the course of litigation. See Bittaker 

v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 718-19 (9th Cir. 2003). The Bittaker decision also applies to waiver 

of the work product privilege. 331 F.3d at 722 n. 6. In Bittaker, the Ninth Circuit held that a 

 

1 Here, the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office was on notice for a significant amount of time that Respondent 

wanted Petitioner’s trail counsel’s file for the instant habeas action and that Petitioner’s counsel had copied 

documents from trial counsel’s file so that those documents could be produced to Respondent.

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 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

27

28

3

petitioner’s waiver must only be as broad as needed to ensure the fairness of the proceedings. Id.

at 720. The holder of the claim, in this case the Petitioner, could abandon his petition if he wants 

to preserve the confidentiality of the privileged communication. Id. at 721. Petitioner wishes to 

proceed with his claims, and therefore, he cannot preserve the confidentiality of the privileged 

information at issue. As discussed at the hearing, what is relevant to Petitioner’s counsel may 

not be the same as what is relevant to Respondent’s counsel. Respondent’s request for the entire 

file appears to be a reasonable request in this case. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner and 

the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office’s oral requests to quash the subpoena duces tecum. 

Petitioner seeks a protective order for documents to be produced from his trial counsel’s 

files. The Court may impose limitations and conditions on the party receiving the privileged 

materials. Id. at 721. The parties did submit proposed protective orders. After considering the 

parties’ submissions and arguments made during the August 20, 2015 hearing on the production 

of documents, and good cause appearing, the undersigned finds the protective order below 

appropriate at this time for information in Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file that has been produced 

to Petitioner’s counsel and Respondent’s counsel.2

“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). 

“The Ninth Circuit recognizes that district courts have great flexibility to protect documents that 

contain confidential or commercially sensitive information.” Cabell v. Zorro Prods., Inc., 294 

F.R.D. 604, 610 (W.D. Wash. 2013). It is within the broad discretion of the district court to 

determine the appropriate degree of protection provided by the protective order. Id. 

III.

PROTECTIVE ORDER

The Court finds good cause to issue a protective order. Accordingly, the following 

protective order shall be entered in this action, subject to the conditions of use described above. 

This protective order covers the unredacted copy of Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file. 

 

2 The Court notes that this protective order is similar to the protective orders approved by the Court of Appeals in 

Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) and Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2002). The 

undersigned has added additional language as necessary for this matter. 

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 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

27

28

4

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court enters this Protective Order 

concerning Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file. The Court hereby orders as follows:

1. All documents produced to Respondent’s counsel and Petitioner’s counsel 

pursuant to Respondent’s request to discover Petitioner’s trial counsel's files shall 

be deemed to be confidential. The copy of Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file that 

was produced to Mr. Price and produced to Mr. Riley at the August 20, 2015 

hearing shall not be copied under any circumstance and shall not shown or 

discussed with persons not authorized pursuant to this Protective Order. These 

documents may be used only by Mr. Riley and his supervisor on behalf of 

Respondent, and Petitioner, Mr. Price, and Ms. Sciandra on behalf of Petitioner,

in connection with these habeas proceedings and may be used only for purposes 

of any proceedings incident to the petition for writ of habeas corpus pending 

before this court. Mr. Price and Ms. Sciandra may show to and discuss with 

Petitioner the documents in Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file, except they shall not 

show the unredacted police reports to Petitioner. Disclosure of the contents of the 

documents and the documents themselves may not be made to any other persons 

or agencies, including any law enforcement or prosecutorial personnel or 

agencies, without an order from this court. This order shall continue in effect 

after the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings and specifically shall apply 

in the event of a retrial of all or any portion of petitioner's criminal case.

2. This protective order does not apply to documents or information obtained from 

sources independent of Petitioner’s trial counsel’s files or previously made public 

even if that information also is contained in Petitioner’s trial counsel’s files. In 

the event that Petitioner or Respondent desires that confidential information be 

disclosed, communicated, discussed, or made available to any person not 

otherwise authorized by this Protective Order, the requesting party must submit to 

opposing counsel and counsel for the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office a 

written notice specifically identifying the information to be disclosed, and the 

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 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

27

28

5

name, title, and business relationship of the persons to whom counsel wishes to

make such disclosure. Counsel for the other party and the Fresno County Public 

Defender’s Office shall have ten (10) business days from the date of receipt of the 

notification to object to the disclosure to any person identified therein. If counsel 

for the other party or the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office does not 

respond in writing to the written notice of disclosure within ten (10) business days 

after receipt thereof, the persons named in the notice, subject to the terms and 

conditions of this Protective Order, shall be entitled to receive the information 

specified in the notice. If any counsel for the other party or the Fresno County 

Public Defender’s Office responds and objects to the disclosure request, and the 

parties subsequently are unable to agree on the terms and conditions of the 

requested disclosure, the requesting party may file a motion with the Court, 

served on counsel for all other parties, setting forth the basis for seeking such 

disclosure, in which case, the requested disclosure shall only be made upon such 

terms as the Court shall provide.

3. In the event any Confidential Information pursuant to this Order is the subject of a 

subpoena or order requiring its disclosure, the recipient of the subpoena or order

will provide immediate notice to the disclosing party through its counsel. The 

recipient of the subpoena or order shall not object to Petitioner or the Fresno 

County Public Defender’s Office’s appearance to protect its interest in 

maintaining the information as confidential. The recipient of the subpoena or

order will not respond to any such subpoena or order until Petitioner and the 

Fresno County Public Defender’s Office has a reasonable opportunity to seek 

appropriate relief from the Court, including but not limited to, a motion to quash 

or motion for a protective order.

4. Any documents and other information designated as Confidential Information 

pursuant hereto must be filed under seal and the party filing such documents must 

comply with the requirements of Local Rule 141 of the Eastern District of 

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 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

27

28

6

California.

5. Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file and any discovery obtained due to the disclosure of 

the material, and all copies thereof, shall be either destroyed or returned to the 

Fresno County Public Defender’s Office, or its counsel, within twenty (20) days 

of the conclusion of this litigation including any appeals. Counsel for Petitioner 

and counsel for Respondent shall certify in writing to the Fresno County Public 

Defender’s Office that said materials have been destroyed or returned, or 

otherwise disposed of as ordered by the Court, within twenty (20) days of the 

conclusion of this litigation including any appeals.

6. During the course of the litigation and before destruction or return of the file the 

documents subject to this protective order shall be placed in a secured location 

from which others not subject to the protective order cannot have access to the 

documents. The file containing the documents shall be placed in a sealed 

envelope or container and referenced as Confidential.

7. Even after the termination of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations

imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until Petitioner and the Fresno 

County Public Defender’s Office agree otherwise in writing or a court order 

otherwise directs. 

8. A copy of this Protective Order, shall be delivered to each person to whom 

disclosure of Confidential Information will be made. The provisions of this 

Protective Order shall be binding upon each such person to whom disclosure is 

made. The person receiving said Confidential Information shall sign an 

acknowledgement and agreement to be bound asserting:

I, [full name], of [full address], declare under penalty of perjury 

that I have read in its entirety and understand the Protective Order for the 

Brown v. Yates proceedings. I agree to comply with and to be bound by 

all the terms of this Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge 

that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment in 

the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any 

manner any information or item that is subject to this Protective Order to 

any person or entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of 

this Order.

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 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

27

28

7

I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court 

for the Eastern District of California for the purpose of enforcing the 

terms of this Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings 

occur after termination of this action.

I hereby appoint [full name] of [full address and telephone

number] as my California agent for service of process in connection with 

this action or any proceedings related to enforcement of this Protective 

Order.

This Acknowledgement shall be signed and dated, and Counsel for the party 

disclosing the information to an authorized person(s) under this Protective Order 

shall obtain and retain a signed copy of Acknowledgment before any such person 

receives any Confidential Information.

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner and the Fresno County Public Defender’s Office’s oral requests to quash 

the subpoena duces tecum are denied; 

2. The protective order herein shall apply to Petitioner’s trial counsel’s file; and

3. Violation of the protective order herein will subject the offending party to contempt 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 21, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00219-LJO-SAB Document 69 Filed 08/21/15 Page 7 of 7