IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 


) 

v. ) Cr. No. 07-52 Erie 

) (Civ. No. 12-61 Erie) 

JASON SCALISE, ) 

) 

Petitioner. ) 

OPINION and ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS 

Petitioner Jason Scalise has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed at Criminal No. 07-52 Erie. (ECF No. 86). The government 

filed a Response to the Motion (ECF No. 89) and, in addition, a Motion for Discovery of 

Attorney-Client Records (ECF No. 88). 

Petitioner responded to the government's discovery motion (ECF No. 90) and 

subsequently filed his own Motion for Leave for Conduct Discovery (ECF. No. 93). The 

government responded to Petitioner's discovery motion (ECF No. 94), to which the Petitioner 

filed a Reply (ECF No. 99). Finally, Petitioner filed a motion (ECF No. 96), which we granted, 

requesting that he be permitted to delay filing a Reply to the government's Response to his 

motion to vacate until after the Court resolves the parties' discovery motions. For the reasons 

explained below, we will grant in part both parties' motions for discovery, as well as Petitioner's 

request for a discovery conference. Each side will be directed to identify information in its 

possession that is properly discoverable in accordance with this opinion. Any remaining disputes 

will be addressed at the discovery conference. 

1 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 1 of 13
I. Background 

A federal grand jury indicted the Petitioner, Jason Scalise, in November 2007 for 

receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(2) and (b)(1), and possessing 

child pornography, in violation of § 2252 (a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Indictment (ECF No. 16). 

Petitioner pled guilty to both counts on January 20, 2009 and was sentenced, on August 4,2009, 

to 168 months of incarceration at Count One and 120 months at Count Two, to run concurrently 

with Count One, in addition to ten years of supervised release. Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, 

Set Aside or Correct Sentence (ECF No. 86). This sentence represented a variance from the 

guidelines range of21O to 262 months, which was calculated based on an offense level of37 and 

a criminal history of 1. Id. There was no plea agreement. Id. Petitioner appealed his sentence, 

which the Third Circuit affirmed in a non-precedential opinion filed October 27,2010 and 

entered on the docket as document 77-2 on November 18,2010. Petitioner then appealed to the 

Supreme Court which denied certiorari on February 28, 2011. Gov't's Response to Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence (ECF No. 89). 

On February 28,2012, Petitioner filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set 

aside or correct sentence based, in part, on claims that his £ixth Amendment right to effective 

assistance of counsel was violated by trial counsel Timothy J. Lucas's alleged conflict of interest, 

as well as counsel's failure to introduce potentially mitigating evidence regarding Petitioner's 

Asperger's Syndrome. The alleged conflict arose from an investigation by the IRS and the 

United States Attorney's Office into Mr. Lucas's failure to pay a significant amount of tax from 

1996 through 2006, an investigation about which Petitioner was not informed. Motion to Vacate 

at 23. 

2 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 2 of 13
While Petitioner's original criminal case was pending, Mr. Lucas was under investigation 

for withholding payment of taxes to the United States. This was not Mr. Lucas's first encounter 

with the IRS. United States v. Lucas, Cr. No. 92-19 Erie. In 1993, he was convicted in this Court 

of a misdemeanor tax offense and sentenced to three months in jail. Id. In his most recent case, 

Mr. Lucas failed to remit to the IRS an amount stipulated at $329,704, for the 1996 to 2006 tax 

years. Transcript ofEntry of Plea, August 4,2010, United States v Lucas, Cr. No. 10-45 Erie. 

On or about July 24, 2007, prior to undertaking representation of Petitioner, Mr. Lucas 

became aware that he was under criminal investigation for non-payment oftaxes. Gov't's 

Response to Motion to Vacate. The investigation was conducted by the Internal Revenue 

Service, which first recommended prosecution in a letter dated June 12,2009. 

The matter was then referred to the Justice Department's Tax Division. Gov't's Response 

to Motion to Vacate. In early September 2009, the Tax Division referred the investigation to the 

United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Id. The referral letter 

referenced the letter ofJune 12,2009, noted above. Id. The United States Attorney's Office 

then contacted Mr. Lucas on or about September 14, 2009 to inform him that the United States 

Attorney's Office was now in charge ofthe investigation. Id. Mr. Lucas then ceased 

representation of all of his clients in federal criminal cases, as advised by the United States 

Attorney's Office. Id. Mr. Lucas pled guilty on August 4,2010, pursuant to a plea agreement, to 

one count of evasion of payment oftaxes in violation of26 U.S.C § 7201. Id. On January 6, 

2011 he was sentenced to twelve months and one day in prison, below the guidelines range of21 

to 27 months. Id. 

Petitioner alleges that this tax investigation created a conflict whereby Mr. Lucas may 

have been caused to "temper his defense of Mr. Scalise" in hopes of finding leniency in his own 

3 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 3 of 13
case. Petitioner's Reply to Gov't's Response to Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery at 2 

(ECF No. 99). On April 3, 2012, the government filed a motion for discovery of attorney-client 

records, and, on April 20, 2012, Petitioner moved for leave to conduct discovery into the 

specifics of the investigation into Mr. Lucas's failure to pay taxes, in order to fully develop the 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 

II. Standard for Granting Discovery 

Rule 6(a) governing proceedings under Section 2255, provides that a ')udge may, for 

good cause, authorize ... discovery under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or Civil 

Procedure, or in accordance with the practices and principles of law." A petitioner seeking 

discovery under § 2255 must show good cause "by setting forth specific allegations which, if 

fully developed, would entitle him or her to the writ." Lee v. Glunt, 667 F.3d 397, 404 (3d Cir. 

2012); see also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908-09 (1997); Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 

300 (1969). While the allegations must be specific, they need not be "supported by solid 

evidence." Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908. Upon a showing of good cause a petitioner is entitled to 

discovery, but the court maintains discretion as to the scope. Williams v. Beard, 637 F.3d 195, 

209 (3d Cir. 2011). 

Determining whether Petitioner has stated specific allegations that might entitle him to 

the writ requires looking at the underlying requirements for a conflict of interest claim. Here, 

Petitioner "must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected [Mr. Lucas's] 

performance." U.S. v. Morelli, 169 F.3d 798,810 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 

446 U.S. 335, 348 (1980)); see also Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162,171 (2002). An actual 

conflict may be shown by a divergence of interests "with respect ...to a course of action." 

Morelli, 169 F.3d at 810 (quoting U.S. v. Gambino, 864 F.2d 1064,1070 (3d Cir. 1988)). 

4 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 4 of 13
Thus, to obtain discovery, Petitioner must advance specific allegations that a divergence 

of interests with Mr. Lucas as to a given course of action adversely affected Mr. Lucas's 

performance. 

III. Discussion 

A. Petitioner's Motion 

We first address Petitioner's discovery request. Petitioner requests information regarding 

tax collection efforts, communications between the IRS and Mr. Lucas, communications between 

the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and Mr. Lucas, 

communications between the United States Attorney's Office and the IRS Criminal Investigation 

Division, communications between the United States Attorney's Office and the Tax Division of 

the United States Department ofJustice, and non-public records of proceedings against Mr. 

Lucas in the District Court with the exception ofthe presentence report. 

1) Actual Conflict 

Petitioner meets the good cause standard for alleging conflict as defined in Bracy and 

Lee. In his underlying § 2255 motion, Petitioner alleges, inter alia, that Mr. Lucas "failed to 

investigate" Petitioner's mental health problems, and did not adequately contest the presentence 

report and sentence, because Mr. Lucas desired to induce the United States Attorney's Office to 

treat him more favorably. Motion to Vacate. The United States Attorney's Office for the 

Western District of Pennsylvania prosecuted both Mr. Lucas and Petitioner. Both parties agree 

that as soon as the United States Attorney's Office informed Mr. Lucas that the investigation had 

been referred to its office, an actual conflict was present. See, e.g., U.S. v. Levy, 25 F.3d 146, 

156 (2d Cir. 1994); U.S. v. McLain, 823 F.2d 1457, 1463-64 (lIth Cir. 1987). In fact, 

approximately one month after Petitioner was sentenced, the United States Attorney's Office 

5 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 5 of 13
advised Mr. Lucas to withdraw from his criminal cases, and he did so. Gov't's Response to 

Motion to Vacate at 28. 

In response to Petitioner's discovery request, the government argues that since the 

investigation was still under the jurisdiction of the IRS and the Tax Division of the Justice 

Department throughout the pendency of Petitioner's proceedings, no conflict existed. Id. at 5. 

This argument fails to show that Petitioner is not entitled to discovery. The documents 

requested by Petitioner might demonstrate, as Petitioner alleges, that Mr. Lucas was sufficiently 

aware of the likelihood of an imminent referral to the United States Attorney such that a conflict 

existed just as if the United States Attorney already controlled the investigation. As the 

government observes, Mr. Lucas "knew his unpaid tax debt and the strength of the government's 

case." Id. With an outstanding tax debt of over $300,000, Mr. Lucas likely knew that the 

investigation would proceed to prosecution, and it is plausible that he may have considered 

tempering his defense in order to placate the United States Attorney. While the evidence 

currently available only indicates a potential conflict, discovery would allow Petitioner to fully 

develop the evidence to establish a conflict. As such, Petitioner has properly alleged an actual 

conflict, namely that Mr. Lucas had a personal interest that was "inconsistent ... with [that] of his 

client," Gov't ofV.1. v. Zepp, 748 F.2d 125, 135 (3d Cir. 1984), which caused a divergence of 

interests with respect to Mr. Lucas's defense of Petitioner. Morelli, 169 F.3d at 810. 

2) Adverse Effect 

While Petitioner has shown the plausibility of an actual conflict, in order to obtain 

discovery he must also properly allege that this conflict adversely affected his counsel's 

performance. In Bracy, the Supreme Court ordered discovery where the petitioner alleged an 

understanding between the corrupt trial judge and his counsel to allow his trial to proceed 

6 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 6 of 13
quickly so as to camouflage the judge's previous bribes. 520 U.S. at 908. The Bracy Court 

reasoned that discovery was warranted because the petitioner's allegation, while "only a 

theory ... not supported by any solid evidence," specifically indicated how bias may have 

impacted his case. Id. at 908-09. This was so even ifthe petitioner was unable to ultimately 

obtain the relevant evidence. Id. at 909. 

Here, Petitioner specifically alleges an actual effect ofthe conflict, namely that Mr. Lucas 

tempered his defense in order to curry favor with the United States Attorney's Office. 

Petitioner's Reply to Response to Petitioner's Discovery Motion at 2. It is undisputed that Mr. 

Lucas neither investigated Petitioner's Asperger's syndrome, nor argued for mitigation on that 

basis. Furthermore, Mr. Lucas pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the government and 

received a below guidelines sentence, despite the fact that this was his second conviction for 

failure to pay taxes. United States v. Lucas, Cr. No. 10-45 Erie at ECF No. 30. While a 

connection between Mr. Lucas's alleged failures of defense and the leniency shown toward him 

in his own proceeding is "only a theory ...not supported by any solid evidence," and Petitioner 

may well be "unable to obtain evidence sufficient" to demonstrate adverse effect, this does not 

defeat a discovery motion. Bracy, 520 U.S. at 908-09. Though the discovery may tum out to be 

fruitless, Petitioner has properly alleged an actual conflict that adversely affected him. 

3) Scope of Discovery 

As noted above, Petitioner requests information regarding tax collection efforts, 

communications between the IRS and Mr. Lucas, communications between the United States 

Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and Mr. Lucas, communications 

between the United States Attorney's Office and the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, 

communications between the United States Attorney's Office and the Tax Division ofthe United 

7 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 7 of 13
States Department of Justice, and non-public records of proceedings against Mr. Lucas in the 

District Court with the exception of the presentence report. "Rule 6(a) [is] clear that the scope 

and extent of.. . discovery is ... confided to the discretion of the District Court," Bracy, 520 U.S. at 

909. 

a. Tax Collection Information 

Petitioner's first request is for: 

All information regarding the IRS's efforts to collect tax due and owing from trial 

counsel, from January 1, 2007, through September 1, 2009, including, but not 

limited to, information regarding the garnishing of money from trial counsel's 

accounts, placing liens on his outside legal contracts, and sending letters to his 

private clients asking that they remit payment directly to the IRS. 

Petitioner's Motion for Discovery at 8. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that parties 

"may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim 

or defense." FED.R.Clv.P.26(b)(1). While the amount of tax loss caused by Mr. Lucas is 

already established, the information requested is relevant because it might show the vigor with 

which Mr. Lucas was pursued. Mr. Lucas certainly knew the magnitude of the amount owed, but 

the strength of the IRS's attempts to pursue the money would have allowed him to gauge more 

precisely the likelihood that they would refer the case for prosecution. Furthermore, though the 

government points to the sensitive nature of the information requested, Gov't's Response to 

Petitioner's Discovery Motion at 5-6, this information is likely no more sensitive than the 

information about Mr. Lucas's tax troubles that is already publicly available from the 

proceedings in his case. Nevertheless, Petitioner may access this information only for purposes 

of the present litigation. He may not disclose any information about Mr. Lucas which is not 

public to anyone not involved in this litigation. 

8 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 8 of 13
b. Tax Investigation Information 

Petitioner's second request is for: 


All records of oral and written communication between the IRS and trial counsel, 


or trial counsel's representative, from January 1, 2007 through September 1, 


2009, regarding the IRS's efforts to collect tax due and owing, the IRS's referral 


of the matter to the Criminal Investigation Division [IRS-CID], and the IRS's 


recommendation of the matter for prosecution. 

Petitioner's Motion for Discovery at 9. This information is relevant for reasons substantially 

similar to the tax collection information, insofar as they concern Mr. Lucas's ability to gauge the 

likelihood of prosecution. Furthermore, this information might demonstrate that, prior to 

Petitioner's sentencing, Mr. Lucas was substantially certain that his case might be referred to the 

United States Attorney's Office, thereby increasing the likelihood that he would allegedly 

attempt to placate that office. 

c. 	 Communications Between Mr. Lucas and the United States 

Attorney 

Petitioner's third request is for: 


All records of oral and written communication between the United States 


Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and trial counsel, or 


trial counsel's representative, from January 1,2007, through September 1,2009. 


Petitioner's Motion for Discovery at 9. This information, if available, is clearly relevant to the 

issue of whether Mr. Lucas had a conflict prior to Petitioner's sentencing in August 2009. While 

the Tax Division of the Department of Justice did not authorize prosecution of Mr. Lucas until 

September 2,2009, the letter doing so made reference to a letter dated June 12,2009 from the 

IRS's Special-Agent-in Charge, Pittsburgh Field Office, recommending prosecution. Though the 

government disclaims any knowledge of communications between the United States Attorney 

and Mr. Lucas prior to September 14,2009, Gov't's Response to Petitioner's Discovery Motion, 

ifthe June lih letter was communicated to Mr. Lucas prior to Petitioner's sentencing, this could 

9 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 9 of 13
go a long way in demonstrating a conflict. 

d. 	 Communications Between the IRS-CID, the Tax Division of 

the United States Justice Department, and the United 

States Attorney 

Petitioner's fourth and fifth requests are for: 

All records of oral and written communication between the United States 

Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Criminal 

Investigation Division of the IRS regarding this matter from January 1, 2007, 

through September 1,2009. 

All records of oral and written communication between the United States 

Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the Tax Division 

of the United States Department of Justice, from January 1, 2007, through 

September 1, 2009. 

Petitioner's Motion for Discovery at 9. These are particularly relevant, because they could show 

that United States Attorney's Office was apprised of the case against Mr. Lucas earlier than the 

current record conclusively indicates. If the United States Attorney's Office was aware that the 

investigation against Mr. Lucas had a substantial likelihood of proceeding while Petitioner's 

sentencing was pending, this could serve to establish the conflict that Petitioner alleges. 

e. Non-Public Records from Proceedings Against Mr. Lucas 

Petitioner's sixth request is for: 

All records of proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Pennsylvania relating to the investigation and prosecution of trial 

counsel that do not appear on the publicly available docket of United States v. 

TimothyJ Lucas, No. 1:10-cr-00045 ... including the issuance of search warrants, 

arrest warrants, or subpoenas, but [not including] the presentence report. 

Petitioner's Motion for Discovery at 9. As this request is quite broad, we will give Petitioner 

access only to warrants and subpoenas, which he specifically requested. These are directly 

relevant as there might be, for example, a search warrant which was not executed, or a subpoena 

10 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 10 of 13
that was not served, because ofMr. Lucas's cooperation in the investigation. This would provide 

strong evidence of a conflict ofinterest. 

4) Discovery Granted In Part 

Because Petitioner has shown good cause, we will grant, in part, his discovery motion. 

We will direct that counsel for the government provide counsel for Petitioner and the Court with 

a list ofthe information in its possession that is subject to discovery consistent with this Opinion. 

B. Government's Motion for Attorney-Client Records 

We now tum to the government's motion. The government moves for discovery of 

attorney-client records in order to defend against Petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel. Gov't's Motion for Discovery. Petitioner concedes that he has waived the privilege 

with regard to certain unspecified information, and requests a conference to resolve the 

government's motion. Petitioner's Response to Gov't's Discovery Motion at 5. 

Rule 6(a) governing § 2255 motions requires the government to show good cause before 

discovery is permitted, and this Court maintains discretion as to the scope of the discovery. 

Williams, 637 FJd at 209. If good cause is shown, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require 

that the information requested be both relevant and not privileged. FED.R.CJv.P.26(b)(1). 

Attorney-client privilege is considered waived when a client's claim places the "advice of 

counsel...in issue." Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851,863 (3d Cir. 

1994). A claim ofineffectiveness of counsel puts advice of counsel in issue, impliedly waiving 

the privilege. U.S. v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 977-78 (10th Cir. 2009); see also Hunt v. 

Blackburn, 128 U.S. 464, 470-71 (1888). The waiver is limited to conversations that bear on the 

strategic choices at issue. Johnson v. Alabama, 256 F .3d 1156, 1178 (11 th Cir. 2001); but see 

11 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 11 of 13
Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 716 (9th Cir. 2003) (indicating that the implied waiver 

extends to all communications between the client and the allegedly ineffective lawyer). 

By raising a claim of ineffective counsel, Petitioner has required the government to 

defend the actions of a third party. The government clearly meets the good cause standard for 

obtaining some amount of discovery ofMr. Lucas's file in order to defend against Petitioner's 

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. As such, the government meets the Rule 6(a) burden. 

The government also meets the requirement ofRule 26(b)(l) ofthe Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure that the discovery requested be relevant. FED.R.Clv.P.26(b)(l). The 

government is defending Petitioner's claims that Mr. Lucas's representation was ineffective and 

it is hard to imagine something more relevant to an attorney's representation than his case file. 

While Petitioner concedes that he has impliedly waived some amount of privilege by 

filing a claim of ineffective assistance, Petitioner's Response to Gov't's Discovery Motion at 5, 

this waiver plainly does not cover Mr. Lucas's entire case file. The implied waiver only extends 

to information in the file about communications regarding the strategy at issue. Johnson, 256 

FJd at 1178. Petitioner concedes that he has "waived the privilege with respect to certain 

information contained in the file" but has not identified the information. Petitioner's Response 

to Gov't's Discovery Motion at 5. We will direct that counsel for Petitioner provide the 

government, and the Court, with a list ofthe information in its possession that Petitioner 

concedes is properly subject to discovery due to Petitioner's having waived the privilege. 

12 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 12 of 13
IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, we will grant in part both parties' discovery motions. Each 

counsel shall provide to opposing counsel a list of discoverable items consistent with this 

Opinion. A discovery conference shall be set, at which the parties may address any remaining 

disputed discovery issues. 

Accordingly, the following Order is hereby entered. 

AY 

AND NOW, to-wit, this 7--1 day of 2012, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows: 

L Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery is GRANTED in part as set forth 

in this Opinion. 

2. 	 The government's Motion for Discovery is GRANTED in part as set forth in this 

Opinion. 

3. 	 Counsel for the government is hereby directed to provide counsel for Petitioner and 

the Court with a list of the information in its possession that is subject to discovery 

consistent with this Opinion no later than July 3, 2012. 

4. 	 Counsel for Petitioner is hereby directed to provide counsel for the government and 

the Court with a list ofthe information in its possession that Petitioner concedes is 

properly subject to discovery because Petitioner has waived the privilege no later than 

July 3, 2012. 

5. 	 A discovery conference is hereby set for July 19, 2012, at 11 :30 a.m. in Courtroom 

SA, United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

1M...~.1. Co-eu" I.Q ,k 

Maurice B. Cohill, Jr., 


Senior United States District Court Judge 


13 


Case 1:07-cr-00052-MBC Document 100 Filed 06/21/12 Page 13 of 13