E L D- 0 3 2 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 9003

___________ IN R E : JE F F R E Y A . B E A R D ; L O U IS B . F O L IN O ;

A N D FRA N K LI N J . TEN N I S, P eti ti o n ers

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o E . D . Pa. N o. 08- cv- 5061)

____________________________________ Sub mi t t e d Pu r s ua ntt o Rul e 21 , Fe d. R. A pp . P.

M ay25, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , H A R D IM A N and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 3, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. T he C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a pet i t i ons fora w r i tof m andamus t o chal l enge a di s coveryor deri s s ued byt he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i n a ca pi t al habea s corpus m att er . Forthe fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e w i l l deny the pet i t i on.2 I . B ackgr ound In 1 9 9 5 , af

ter a ju rytrial, th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s o f

P h ilad e lp h ia C o u n ty convi ct ed D ani el G w ynn of fi r s tdegr ee mur der , ar s on, and othercr i m es . H e w as s ent ence d t o death. I n 2008, he fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 . A m o n g o th e rs, h e ra ise d c laim s th a t th e C o m m o n w e a lth w ith h e ld excul pat oryevi dence , empl oy ed s ugges t i ve phot o i dent i fi cat i on pr ocedur es , and p re s e n te d f

a ls e in f o rm a tio n to th e tr ia l c o u rt . O n Sept ember15, 2009, G w ynn fi l ed a mot i on fordi s coverypur s uantt o R ul e 6( a) of the R ul es G overni ng Sect i on 2254 C as es . H e s ought : ( 1) compl et e pol i ce a nd prosecuti on fi l es fr om his case, speci fi cal l yi ncludi ng ph otographs used to el i ci tw i t ness i dent i fi cat i ons and pol i ce de part m entact i vi t ys heet s ; and ( 2) compl et e pol i ce a nd p rose cu ti o n fil es re lat ing to a s im il ar m u rde r/ arso n that too k p lace ab o u t a y ea r ea rl ier, w hi ch occ ur r ed i n t he s ame l ocat i on as the murde r/ ar s on i n G w ynn’ s cas e and w hi ch l ed to th e p ro se c u tio n o f

tw o in d iv id u a ls, Jo h n so n a n d L u p to n , w h o G w yn n c laim s a c tu a lly comm i t t ed the cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed. G w ynn ar gued he ha d good caus e for e a c h re q u e st. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth re sp o n d e d to G w yn n ’s d isc o v e rym o tio n . It ag re e d to pr oduce a copyof the pr e- t r i al di s coverypr oduced i n t he s t at e pr ocee di ngs , the pol i ce act i vi tys heet s , and the tr ans cr i ptfr om the Lupt on tr i al . T he C om m onw eal t h oppos ed the r emai ni ng di s coveryr eques t s as pr ematur e, ar gui ng that , beca us e G w ynn had noty etfi l ed3

a mem or andum i n s uppor tof hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on, he had notes t abl i s hed, among o ther thin g s, that h is cl aim s h ad b ee n p rop erlyraised an d d ev elop ed in state co u rt . In a d d iti o n , the C o m m o n w e a lth a rg u e d th a t, i f h e h a d f iled a su p p o rtin g m e m o ra n d u m , it w o u l d b e a p p a r e n tt h a tG w yn n ’ s c l a i m s a r e p r o c e d u r a l l y d e f a u l t e d a n d m e r i t l e s s . F i n a l l y, the C om m onw eal t h ar gued thatpr oduct i on of compl et e pol i ce f i l es r es ul t s i n a “f

i s hi ng expedi t i on” and w oul d chi l l t he conduc tof pol i ce i nves t i gat i ons i n t he futur e. I n r epl y , G w ynn ar gued thatthe di s coveryr eques t s ar e notpr ematur e as a mat t erof law a n d th a t d isc o v e ryw o u ld a ss ist h im in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r h e c a n e sta b lish a b a sis to ov ercom e anypo t enti al proced ural defa ult . G w ynn al so rei t erat ed the go od cause u n d e rl y in g h is re q u e s ts . O n M ar ch 19, 2010, t he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed G w ynn’ s di s coverym ot i on. T he C om m onw eal t h fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus on A pr i l 15, 2010. II. A n a ly sis A. A habea s pet i t i oner , unl i ke an or di naryci vi l l i t i ganti n fede r al cour t , i s not aut om at i cal l yent i t l ed t o di s coveryunderthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. B r acyv. G ram l ey , 52 0 U . S . 89 9, 90 4 (199 7). U nd er R ule 6 of the R ules G ov erni ng § 2 25 4 C ases, a partys eeki ng di s coverym us tm ake s peci fi c r eques t s and mustpr ovi de r eas ons fort he r eques t s . See R ul e 6( b) . U pon s uch a mot i on, the D i s t r i ctC our t“may , forgood caus e, author i ze a part yt o conductdi s coveryunderthe Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e andT he C om m onw eal t h ar gues t hatthe pr ovi s i on l i m i t i ng the ava i l abi l i t yof an 1 evi dent i aryhear i ng i n habea s corpus cas es w her e a s t at e pr i s onerfai l s t o fi r s tdevel op t he fac tual bas i s of a c l ai m i n s t at e court , s ee 28 U . S. C . § 2254( e) ( 2) , s i m i l ar l yci r cumscr i bes the ava i l abi l i t yof documentdi s covery . W e have notpr evi ous l yaddr es s ed thi s i s s ue and, gi ven ourdi s pos i t i on of thi s pet i t i on, need notdo s o i n t hi s cas e. 4 m a ylim it th e e x ten t o f

d isc o v e ry .” R u le 6 (a ). T h e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld thata D i s tr i ctC our thas a dutyt o perm i tR ul e 6 di s coveryi n a habe as corpus m att er “w her e s peci fi c al l egat i ons befor e the courts how r eas on t o bel i eve thatthe pet i t i oner m a y , if th e f

a c ts a re f u llyd e v e lo p e d , b e a b le to d e m o n stra te th a t h e is . . . e n tit led to re lie f. . . .” B ra c y , 5 2 0 U .S . a t 9 0 8 -0 9 .

1 T he thrus tof the C om m onw eal t h’ s pet i t i on focus es on t he cont ent i on thatthe D istric t C o u rt’s d isc o v e ryo rd e r p e rm its G yw n n to d e v e lo p c laim s th a t h e f a iled to p rese rve in state co u rt . B ef o re w e m ayco n side r th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s claim , h o w ev er, w e mustaddr es s a det erm i nat i ve thr es hol d i s s ue: w hether , underthe ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e, ourm andamus j ur i s di ct i on perm i t s us t o i m m edi at el yr evi ew the D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s disco v eryo rde r. B. W e h a v e a u t h o r i t yt o i s s u e a wr i to f ma n d a mu s u n d e rth e Al l W r i t s Ac t . 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 6 5 1 (a ); se e In re C h a m b e rs D e v . C o ., 1 4 8 F .3 d 2 1 4 , 2 2 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). M a n d a m u s is a dr as t i c r emedygr ant ed onl yi n t he mostextr aor di narys i tuat i ons . H ahnemann U ni v. H os p. v. E dgar , 74 F. 3d 456, 461 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . B efor e w e mayexer ci s e ourdi s cr et i on to iss u e th e w rit, th e p e tit io n e r m u st e sta b lish b o th a “ c lea r a n d in d isp u tab le” rig h t to5

r el i ef a nd t hatt her e i s “no otheradequa t e means ” t o obt ai n r el i ef. See I n r e D i etD rugs Pr ods . L i ab. L i t i g. , 418 F. 3d 372, 378- 79 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T he w r i tdoes notpr ovi de a s u b s titu te f

o r a n a p p e a l. S e e C h e n e yv . U .S . D is t. C t. f o r D .C ., 5 4 2 U .S . 3 6 7 , 3 8 1 (2 0 0 4 ). A s a g e n e ra l ru le, th e n o rm a l ap p e a l p ro c e ss p ro v id e s th e o p p o rtu n ityto o b tain rel i ef from a D i stri ctC ou rt ’s pretri al dis cov eryorder. A ccordi ng l y , ci vil l i t i gan t s m ust w ai tunt i l aft erfi nal j udgm entt o vi ndi cat e thei rr i ght s r el at i ve t o s uch or der s . See 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 ; M o h a w k In d u s., In c . v . C a rp e n ter , 1 3 0 S . C t. 59 9 , 6 0 6 (2 0 0 9 ). In d e e d , if w e w er e t o r out i nel yi s s ue the w r i tof m andamus t o r evi ew di s coveryor der s , w e w oul d be e n c o u ra g in g th e so rt o f

p iec e m e a l li tig a tio n w e h a v e b e e n sp e c if ica llyin stru c ted to d is c o u ra g e . S e e K e rr v . U .S . D is t. C t. f o r N . D is t. o f

C a l., 4 2 6 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 3 (1 9 7 6 ). U n d e r a p p ro p ria te c irc u m sta n c e s, h o w e v e r, w e m a ye x e rc ise o u r d isc re tio n to i s s ue a w r i tof m andamus t o pr om pt l ycorr ectthe mosts er i ous and funda m ent al D i s t r i ct C our terr or s conce r ni ng pr etr i al di s coverym att er s . See M ohaw k, 130 S. C t . at608. For i ns t ance , t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas acknow l edged thatm andamus maybe ap p rop ri ate w h ere a p retri al disco v eryo rde r reflec ts a j u d ici al us u rpa ti o n o f p o w er o r a c le a r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n , o r w h e re n e c e s s a ry to re m e d ya m a n if e s t in ju s tic e . Id . a t 6 0 7 . H er e, t he C om m onw eal t h’ s bas i c cont ent i on i s thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed l egal err ori n det erm i ni ng w hethergood caus e s uppor t s the di s coveryr eques t s i n t he under l y i ng habea s corpus m att er . See B r acy , 520 U . S. at908- 09. A cl ai m of l egal err or i n a di s coverydeci s i on gener al l ydoes notfal l w i t hi n ourm andamus a uthor i t y . T heT o the ext entt he C om m onw eal t h att empt s t o r el yupon deci s i ons bythe C our tof 2 A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , t hatC our tappl i es a bal anci ng t es ti n w hi ch cl earl egal e rr ormaypr ov i de t he s ol e ba s i s fo ri s s ui ng the w r i tof mand a mus . Se e Cal de r on v. U . S. D i s t . C t . forN . D i s t . C al . , 98 F. 3d 1102, 1105 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . W e have notadopt ed the N i nth C i r cui t ’ s appr oach. 6 C om m onw eal t h has not , forexampl e, s etfor t h a cl ai m thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tact ed en ti relyw ith o u t j u ri sd ict ion . S ee In re S ch . A sb esto s L it ig., 9 2 1 F . 3 d 1 3 1 0 , 1 3 1 4 (3d C ir . 20 00 ) ( “C ou rt s tradi t i on al l yhav e em ploy ed w ri t s t o restrai n jur i sdi ct i on al excesses, p arti cu larl yw h en a low er c o u rth as a cted w ith o u t auth o ri tyto d o so . ”); see a lso In re P rue tt , 1 3 3 F . 3 d 2 7 5 , 2 8 0 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (“B ec au se th e issu e inv o lves the c o u rt ’s a u th o rityto a c t ex p a rte a t all a n d n o t w h e th e r d isc re tio n w a s o r w a s n o t p ro p e rly ex erc ised , w e b eli ev e m an d am u s is th e o n ly‘ad eq u ate’ m ea n s o f testi n g the issu e.”). N e v e rth e les s, th e C o m m o n w e a lth p ro p o se s th a t m a n d a m u s s h o u ld lie to i m m edi at el ycons i deri t s cl ai m , ar gui ng thatw e have expr es s ed a pr efe r ence forgr ant i ng th e w ri t to p e rm it im m e d ia te re v ie w o f d is c o v e ry o rd e rs in h a b e a s c o rp u s m a tte rs . ( Pet i t i on at5, n. 4. ) H ow ever , t he C om m onw eal t h pr ovi des no s uppor tfori t s pr opos al thatthe habe as corpus di s coverycont extal one es t abl i s hes a bas i s forgr ant i ng m andamus r el i ef. T o t he contr ary , w e do notappl ys uch “bl ack l et t er ” rul es t o m andamus

2 det erm i nat i ons . See I n r e Sch. A s bes t os L i t i g. , 977 F. 2d at772- 73. N ext , t he C om m onw eal t h as s ert s w e s houl d gr antm andamus be caus e thi s habea s corpus di s coveryor deri m pl i cat es deci s i ons m ade bys t at e court s . T he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas “l ong r ecogni zed the pr i nci pl es of fe der al i s m and comi t yats t akeT h e C o m m o n w e a lth a rg u e s th a t “r o u tin e d e f e n se a c c e ss to f

u ll p o lice f

iles is 3 e v e n tu a llyg o in g to g e t so m e o n e th re a ten e d , h u rt o r e v e n k ill e d .” (P e tit io n a t 4 .) W h ile pr ot ect i ng i ndi vi dual s afe t yi s i ndeed i m por t ant , the C om m onw eal t h has offe r ed nothi ng m or e than a br oad gene r al i zat i on and has noti dent i fi ed a c oncern s peci fi c t o t he under l y i ng pr ocee di ng. M or eover , the D i s t r i ctC our ti s equi pped t o fas hi on a var i etyof 7 w hen s t at e pr i s oner s at t empt t o us e the fe der al cour tt o att ack thei rfi nal convi ct i ons . ” D i s t . A t t ’ y ’ s O ffi ce of

3d J udi ci al D i s t . v. O s bor ne, 129 S. C t . 2308, 2324 ( 2009) ( A l i t o, J . , concurr i ng) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . H ow ever , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe mer e exi s t ence o f th e s e in te re s ts re q u ir e s o u r i m m e d ia te in te rv e n tio n in th e D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro c e e d in g . W e mayr evi ew t he habe as corpus di s coveryor der , and addr es s anycomi t y , fede r al i s m , or otheri m por t anti nt er es t s i tm ayi m pl i cat e, dur i ng the cour s e of a n or di naryappea l w hen the D i s tr i ctC our thas ent er ed a f i nal j udgm ent . T he C om m onw eal t h has notes t abl i s hed o th e rw is e . F in a lly , the C o m m o n w e a lth c o n ten d s th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r in f rin g e s u p o n its gener al i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng pol i ce f i l es fr om publ i c di s cl os ur e. M andamus maybe a p p ro p ria te in c a se s in w h ich a p a rtyh a s b e e n o rd e re d to p ro d u c e d o c u m e n ts e n tit led to pr ot ect i on bas ed upon a r ecogni zed pr i vi l ege orconfi dent i al i t yi nt er es t . See R honePoul enc Rore rI nc. v. H om e I ndem. C o. , 32 F. 3d 851, 861 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ; B ogos i an v. G u lf O il C o rp., 7 3 8 F . 2 d 5 8 7 , 5 9 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). H ere , h o w ev er, th e C o m m o n w ea lth ’s br oad i nvocat i on of a ge ner al confi dent i al i t yi nt er es ti s i ns uffi ci ent . T o w arr ant m andamus, t he C om m onw eal t h m us tdemonstr at e thatcompl i ance w i th t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s ord er w il l des tr o ythe in terest th at req u ir es p rotec ti o n in this ca se. S ee In re 3r emedi es t o addr es s part i cul ars afe t yand conf i dent i al i t yconce r ns . W e not e thatthe Co mmo n we a l t h h a s n e v e rr e q u e s t e d a n yo f th e m. 8 C hamber s D ev. C o. , 148 F. 3d at227 n. 9; B ogos i an, 738 F. 2d at591. T he C om m onw eal t h has notm ett hatbur den. C. I n s um , t he C om m onw eal t h cont ends the D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ygr ant ed G w ynn’ s habea s corpus di s coveryr eques t s . B eca us e the C om m onw eal t h’ s cl ai m s m aybe addr es s ed i n t he cour s e of a n or di naryappea l , the C om m onw eal t h has notes t abl i s hed that there is “n o o ther a d eq u ate m ea n s” b yw h ich it m ayo b tai n reli ef fro m the D istri ct C o u rt ’s h a b e a s c o rp u s d isc o v e ryo rd e r. S e e K e rr, 4 2 6 U .S . at 4 0 4 -0 5 . T h e C o m m o n w e a lth th e re f o re h a s f a ile d to m a k e th e n e c e s s a ry sh o w in g to w a rr a n t m a n d a m u s re lie f.

I I I . C oncl us i on F or the fo regoi ng reas on s, w e w i l l den ythe p et i t i on for a w ri tof m and am us.