Ervine

Ervine v. Warden, San Quentin State Prison

Good Law
214 F. Supp. 3d 917·2016 WL 5870797·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140063
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 7, 2016No. 2:15-cv-1916 TLN DBCalifornia1,954 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Barnes, J.

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER

On September 30, 2016, this court heard argument on petitioner’s August 19, 2016 motion for a protective order. Tivon Schardl and Karl Saddlemire appeared for petitioner. Laura Wetzel Simpton appeared for respondent. In his motion, petitioner seeks to file under seal two categories of exhibits to the petition: (1) exhibit 290, a juror declaration; and (2) exhibits 291-301, notes petitioner wrote before trial for his attorney. In addition, petitioner seeks a protective order addressing respondent’s use of petitioner’s notes. After considering the parties’ briefs, and hearing the argument of counsel, this court will grant in part petitioner’s motion for the reasons set out below.

At the conclusion of argument on petitioner’s motion, the court inquired whether respondent was prepared to discuss a response to the petition. Respondent’s counsel stated that respondent intends to move to dismiss for exhaustion. Respondent requested four months to complete review of the petition and file the motion.

Legal Standards

I. Sealing

Because there is a common law right of access to judicial records, petitioner must show that “compelling reasons” *919 supported by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.