244 Cal. App. 4th 459
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Petitioner Gilbert Raul Rubio, a death-row inmate, sought postconviction discovery under Penal Code §1054.9 after trial counsel’s files appeared incomplete; habeas counsel (HCRC) made good-faith attempts to obtain materials from trial counsel and the Los Angeles District Attorney (LADA).
- LADA produced two PDF CDs (about 16,834 pages each) with redactions and apparent scanning problems; counsel identified additional items allegedly missing and filed §1054.9 motions for specific materials.
- LADA’s Discovery Compliance Unit produced materials, then submitted statements seeking reimbursement of $2,560.53 for paralegal time (≈$57.54/hr) spent examining and locating documents plus copying costs.
- The trial court ordered Rubio to pay the full $2,560.53, including paralegal labor for examining files; Rubio sought writ relief from the Court of Appeal.
- The sole legal question: whether §1054.9(d)’s phrase "actual costs of examination or copying" includes the prosecution’s labor/overhead for locating, examining, redacting, and preparing documents for production, or is limited to direct duplication costs (and related actual copying expenses).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rubio) | Defendant's Argument (People/LADA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "examination" in §1054.9(d) | Refers to defendant's examination of physical evidence; not prosecution's file-review work | Includes prosecution's examination of documents in preparing production | Court: "Examination" refers to defendant's (or counsel's) examination of physical evidence (subd. (c)), not the prosecution's pre-production review |
| Scope of "actual costs" of "copying" | Limited to direct duplication costs and media (paper, ink, CDs); excludes staff time, benefits, indirect overhead | Encompasses both the product and the service: labor, benefits, overhead, equipment, and supplies required to locate, prepare, and copy materials | Court: "Actual costs" does not include costs of locating, examining, redacting, preparing documents; but does include labor of employee who actually performs copying/transfer, proportional equipment costs, and consumable costs |
| Whether trial court properly ordered Rubio to pay paralegal review time | Rubio: ordering payment for paralegal review improperly conditions entitled discovery and deters postconviction petitions | People: charging labor discourages fishing expeditions and recoups real costs; funds can come from Gov. Code §68666 for indigent petitioners | Court: Trial court's order requiring reimbursement for paralegal time (as billed) was erroneous; vacate and remand to recalculate consistent with opinion |
| Interaction with other statutes/precedents (e.g., CPRA) | Analogous CPRA case law limits charges to direct duplication, supporting Rubio | People cite other provisions allowing some clerical/retrieval charges to justify broader reading | Court: analogies provide limited help; statute's text/structure and legislative purpose favor limiting charges to copying-related expenditures; where Legislature intended broader recovery it has done so expressly |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 890 (California 2010) (interpreting scope and purpose of §1054.9 postconviction discovery)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (California 2010) (distinguishing §1054.9 postconviction discovery from Proposition 115 pretrial scheme)
- In re Steele, 32 Cal.4th 682 (California 2004) (limiting §1054.9 to specific categories and prohibiting free-ranging discovery)
- Catlin v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 300 (California 2011) (procedural contours of filing §1054.9 motions in habeas context)
- North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education, 23 Cal.App.4th 144 (California Ct. App. 1994) (CPRA: direct duplication costs do not include ancillary search/review time)
- People v. Curl, 46 Cal.4th 339 (California 2009) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; interpretive principles)
- People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (California 2015) (de novo review applies when statutory interpretation is at issue)
- Lee v. Hanley, 61 Cal.4th 1225 (California 2015) (statutory construction starting with plain language; de novo review)