Court filing
Proposed Order — USA v. Western Distribution, LLC. et al (Dkt. 138.1)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-03-11 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 5:21-cr-00170-JGB · Doc. 138-1 · 2025-03-11 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Doc. 138-1, filed March 11, 2025 in No. 5:21-cr-00170-JGB in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is the government's proposed order on its ex parte application concerning attorney-client communications of defendant Carl Bradley Johansson. The proposed order would find that the defendant waived privilege for communications with defense counsel Mark Werksman, Edward Robinson and Rachel Robinson relating to the ineffective-assistance claims in his motion to vacate filed November 13, 2024. It sets a schedule: government interrogatories by March 21, 2025, defense counsel's draft answers to the defendant by April 18, 2025, his objections by May 9, 2025, and responses or notice of withdrawal of the motion by May 23, 2025. It also sets protective terms, including filing under seal and use of the disclosures only to litigate the motion.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
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 JOSEPH T. MCNALLY Acting United States Attorney LINDSEY GREER DOTSON Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MATTHEW O'BRIEN (Cal. Bar No. 261568) Assistant United States Attorney Environmental Crimes and Consumer Protection Section 1400 United States Courthouse 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, California 90012 Telephone: (213) 894-8644 Facsimile: (213) 894-0141 E-mail: Matthew.O'Brien@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff/Respondent UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. CARL BRADLEY JOHANSSON, aka “Brad Johnson,” aka “Carl Johnson,” aka “C. Brad Johanson,” aka “Jay Johnson,” aka “Keith Golatta, Defendant/Petitioner. No. 5:18-CR-00114-JGB 5:21-CR-00170-JGB 5:24-CV-02550-JGB 5:24-CV-02552-JGB [PROPOSED] ORDER The Court has read and considered the government’s Ex Parte Application for a Court Order (1) Authorizing Disclosure of Certain Attorney-Client Communications, (2) Establishing Procedures for Obtaining Such Attorney-Client Communications, and (3) Implementing Protective Order for Such Obtained Communications (the “Application”). The Court hereby finds that the Application, which this Court incorporates by reference into this Order, demonstrates facts that support the requested order. IT IS HEREBY OREDERED THAT: Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 138-1 Filed 03/11/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:1205 2 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 (A) Defendant/petitioner CARL BRADLEY JOHANSSON, also known as “Brad Johnson,” “Carl Johnson,” “C. Brad Johanson,” “Jay Johnson,” and “Keith Golatta” (“defendant”), has waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to communications between himself and three of her counsel, Mark Werksman, Edward Robinson, and Rachel Robinson (“defense counsel”), concerning the events and facts related to defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence filed on November 13, 2024 in the above-captioned cases (the “Motion”). (B) In accordance with Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 720 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that upon court order waiving attorney- client privilege, “the holder of the privilege may preserve the confidentiality of the privileged communication by choosing to abandon the claim that gives rise to the waiver condition”), if defendant chooses to withdraw the Motion, rather than waive his attorney-client privilege, defendant or defense counsel must notify the government and the Court no later than May 23, 2025. (C) The parties shall abide by the following procedures and schedule: a. By March 21, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California (the “USAO”) shall propound to defense counsel interrogatories related to defendant’s claim that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. b. Defense counsel shall prepare written answers to the interrogatories, or note objections to particular interrogatories as beyond the scope of the appropriate waiver, providing reasons for any such objection. By no later than April 18, 2025, defense counsel shall provide the interrogatories and their proposed answers and objections to defendant for defendant’s review. Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 138-1 Filed 03/11/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:1206 3 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 c. By no later than May 9, 2025, defendant shall provide to defense counsel any additional objections to interrogatories believed to be beyond the scope of the waiver, providing reasons for any such objections, or advise defense counsel that he wishes to withdraw the Motion. d. By no later than May 23, 2025, defense counsel shall provide the USAO with either (a) notice that defendant has elected to withdraw the Motion, or (b) written responses, with supporting exhibits, if any, answering the interrogatories propounded by the USAO under penalty of perjury, or noting objections to those interrogatories as being beyond the scope of defendant’s waiver, together with the reasons for any such objections. As set forth in Paragraph (B) above, to the extent that defense counsel provides notice to the USAO that defendant has elected to withdraw the Motion, defense counsel shall provide such notice to the Court. e. If the defendant has objections, or if other issues remain unresolved, the USAO shall file a motion to resolve the objections or issues along with a proposed briefing schedule by no later than June 5, 2025 (and the proposed briefing schedule shall propose new deadlines for the government’s response to defendant’s Motion and defendant’s Reply, which are currently due on June 5, 2025, and July 3, 2025, respectively). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 1. The information disclosed in response to the USAO’s interrogatories will be considered confidential information and, absent further Court order, will not be disclosed by the USAO to any other law enforcement or prosecuting agency except as necessary to Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 138-1 Filed 03/11/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:1207 4 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 assist in the USAO=s litigation of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim presented in the motion; 2. Any pleadings referencing the information disclosed in response to the USAO’s interrogatories will be filed under seal; 3. The information disclosed in response to the USAO’s interrogatories will be used by the USAO only for the purpose of litigating the claims presented in the Motion; 4. The USAO will provide a copy of the Court’s order to any individual who is provided access to the information disclosed in response to the USAO’s interrogatories; and 5. The protections of the protective order shall remain in place even after litigation of defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is completed. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATE HON. JESUS G. BERNAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: /s/ MATTHEW O'BRIEN Assistant United States Attorney Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 138-1 Filed 03/11/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:1208 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 Case 5:21-cr-00170-JGB Document 138-1 Filed 03/11/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:1209
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.826563.138.1.pdf
- Size
- 129,124 bytes
- SHA-256
- e9b722729ece012781fe16939d0cf20d797aa078c75d4fa0bf25aeb75bfe1f9f
- Original
- PACER (login required)