As directed in the court's November 14, 2012 order (Dkt. No. 460), respondent has submitted for the court's in camera review copies of several documents from the prosecutor's trial files. (See Dkt. No. 463.) Respondent contends the documents are not relevant to petitioner's discovery requests and are protected by California's Official Information Privilege.
The court granted petitioner's discovery request for "the following records from the files of trial prosecutor Charles Kirk:"
i. Any and all documentation of communications between prosecutor Kirk (or investigative agents working on the case) and Alameda County officials regarding Robert Hayes.
ii. Any and all background information regarding Cade, Long, Rooks, Yacotis, Hayes and/or Gardner that was obtained or compiled prior to their testifying at petitioner's trial.
iii. Any and all notes or memoranda regarding Cade, Long, Rooks, Yacotis, Hayes and/or Gardner.
(Dkt. No. 460 at 9-10.) Respondent's counsel states that, rather than provide only documents strictly responsive documents to petitioner, respondent has elected to provide petitioner's counsel access to Mr. Kirk's entire trial file, withholding only those documents submitted here for the court's in camera review.
The court need not reach the issue of whether or not the documents which have presented by respondent for in camera review are protected from disclosure by any privilege. After carefully reviewing those documents, the court finds they are neither relevant nor in any way responsive to petitioner's discovery requests which the court previously granted.
Accordingly, respondent will not be ordered to provide petitioner access to the documents submitted to this court on January 10, 2013 for in camera review. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the copies of those documents submitted to the court by respondent for in camera review.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...