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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL A. COX,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

No. 2:04-CV-0065 MCE CKD

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

Earlier this year, this court granted petitioner’s request to perpetuate the testimony of 

seven witnesses – Dr. Albert Globus, five social history witnesses, and Juror David Kurtzman. 

(ECF Nos. 157, 163.) Respondent moves for discovery prior to taking the witnesses’ testimony. 

(ECF No. 172.) The parties previously stipulated to, and the court issued, a protective order to 

cover this discovery. (ECF No. 171.) 

Respondent seeks all defense files from petitioner’s trial attorneys; all documentation 

regarding Dr. Globus’s involvement in petitioner’s case; all materials relied upon or generated by 

Drs. Khazanov and Victoroff, experts retained by habeas counsel; all information gathered 

regarding the preparation of Juror Kurtzman’s and the social history witnesses’ declarations; and 

identifying information for those witnesses. Respondent argues that these documents are 

necessary to permit him to cross-examine Dr. Globus and to determine whether depositions of the 

remaining witnesses are necessary or whether respondent will be willing to stipulate to their 

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 178 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 5
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

declarations as their testimony. Petitioner opposes respondent’s motion. (ECF No. 177.) 

Respondent did not file a reply.

The parties in a habeas proceeding are not entitled to discovery as a matter of course. 

Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather, “[a] party shall be entitled to invoke the 

processes of discovery available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent 

that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and for good cause shown grants leave to do so, 

but not otherwise.” Rule 6, Rules Governing §2254 Cases. Good cause is shown by the 

presentation of “specific allegations” demonstrating the need for the discovery. Cf., Bracy, 520 

U.S. at 908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)).

This court agrees with respondent that in this unusual situation where petitioner is 

permitted to perpetuate testimony, discovery prior to taking that testimony may be appropriate. 

That said, respondent fails to demonstrate any specific need for much of the discovery sought. 

Not only is specificity required to establish good cause under Rule 6, it is a necessity to discover 

the protected documents sought here. 

All of the documents respondent seeks are covered by either the attorney/client privilege, 

the psychotherapist/patient privilege, or attorney work product protections. Respondent states 

simply that because petitioner has raised ineffective assistance of counsel claims, “there is no 

ethical or privilege problems raised by” his request for production of documents from petitioner’s 

trial counsel’s files. (ECF No. 172 at 5.) Similarly, he posits that “there are no ethical or 

privilege impediments to disclosing” information from mental health professionals because 

petitioner has placed his mental and physical state at issue. (Id. at 6.) Respondent oversimplifies 

the law. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined the extent of the privilege waiver by a 

habeas petitioner who raised claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In Bittaker v. Woodford, 

331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003), the court held that such a waiver must be “narrowly tailored.” 

Petitioner waives his privileges and protections only “to the extent necessary to give [his] 

opponent a fair opportunity to defend against” his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Id. at 

720; see United States v. Garcia, 2010 WL 144860, *5 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2010) (court limits 

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 178 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 5
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

waiver to specific ineffective assistance of counsel issues raised by the petitioner). In the present 

case, the waiver should also be limited by its purpose. Respondent may not seek discovery to 

defend against petitioner’s claims in their entirety. Rather, at this juncture it is appropriate for 

respondent to discover only what is necessary to permit him to cross-examine petitioner’s 

witnesses. With these limitations in mind, each item of discovery sought is addressed below.

First, respondent’s request for everything in trial counsel’s files lacks specificity. 

Respondent makes no attempt to show why, at this point, he requires all of these documents. 

Respondent has failed to establish good cause to discover petitioner’s trial counsel’s entire files.

Second, while respondent’s requests with respect to Dr. Globus lack specificity, this court 

finds that good cause for some of the requests is evident. Petitioner makes numerous allegations 

that his trial attorneys were ineffective at the penalty phase for conduct involving Dr. Globus. 

Among other things, petitioner alleges: (1) counsel failed to provide Dr. Globus with “necessary 

reports, records, declarations, and access to witnesses,” with “reliable and accurate information 

from mental health care professionals,” and records concerning a head injury petitioner suffered; 

(2) counsel failed to conduct additional investigations as indicated by Dr. Globus; (3) counsel 

failed to give Dr. Globus access to petitioner’s siblings and others who could have detailed

petitioner’s childhood, which included sexual and physical abuse by his step-father, multigenerational substance abuse, and addiction; (4) counsel failed to provide Dr. Globus with 

medical records of EEGs performed when petitioner was a child that showed abnormal results; 

and (5) counsel failed to follow up on Dr. Globus’s recommendations that they retain a clinician 

capable of performing a competent neuropsychological exam, that they order further brain wave 

testing after a 1985 EEG showed abnormal results, and that they provide thorough background 

information. Petitioner argues that if Dr. Globus had been adequately prepared, his penalty phase 

testimony would have provided substantially greater mitigating evidence. (ECF No. 138-1 at 

153-247.) Dr. Globus’s communications with counsel are unquestionably important to his claims 

that counsel acted unreasonably and Dr. Globus’s professional conclusions are relevant to his 

claims that counsel’s conduct prejudiced him. 

////

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 178 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 5
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

Accordingly, the court finds good cause for respondent’s request for the following 

discovery regarding Dr. Globus:

2. All communications, whether oral or written between Dr. Globus 

and Petitioner’s defense team (Forester and Tapson).

3. All communications between Dr. Globus and any person 

(including Petitioner, lay witnesses, expert witnesses, trial or 

appellate and habeas counsel) related to this case. Including but not 

limited to all information gleaned whether oral or written from the 

interviews with Petitioner.

4. All notes, raw data, test results, and other material relied upon or 

generated by Dr. Globus in preparation for trial. Including but not 

limited to Dr. Globus’s entire file on this case through to the 

present.

5. All notes, raw data, test results, and other material relied upon by 

Dr. Globus in preparation of his 2005 declaration.

Respondent also requests “[a]ny material reviewed or relied upon by Dr. Globus since his 2005 

declaration.” Presumably, respondent meant to limit this request to any material “regarding this 

case.” With that limitation, the court finds good cause for the request. 

Third, respondent requests “[a]ny material, notes, test data, reports, and interviews relied 

upon” by Drs. Natasha Khazanov and Jeff Victoroff “in this case.” Respondent’s only basis for 

this request is his statement that Dr. Globus agrees with the conclusions made by these two 

doctors retained by habeas counsel. Given the limited waiver of petitioner’s privileges and 

protections, respondent’s simple request is insufficient to establish good cause for this discovery.

Fourth, respondent’s request 9 for “any and all correspondence or communication whether 

oral or written between Dr. Globus and any other expert witness” is already covered by request 3 

described above.

Fifth, respondent requests information regarding the preparation of the declarations of the 

social history witnesses and of Juror Kurtzman. Respondent does not explain how this 

information regarding the work of habeas counsel would relate to petitioner’s claims of 

ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Respondent states that he requires this information to 

determine whether he will stipulate to the use of the declarations in lieu of live testimony. The 

court finds that reason insufficient to justify breaching the protections afforded petitioner’s 

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 178 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 5
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

attorneys’ work product.

For the foregoing reasons, and good cause appearing, respondent’s October 20, 2015 

Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 172) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART. Within 30 days of the filed date of this order, respondent shall propound the 

authorized discovery requests. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 18, 2015

Cox r. disco.or

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00065-MCE-CKD Document 178 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 5