|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Christian M. Longo v. Jeff Premo|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Mark A. Larranaga on behalf of Christian M. Longo|
Anna Marie Joyce, Leigh A . Salmon and Timothy A. Sylwester on behalf of Jeff Premo
|time shared with S060980|
Statement of Issues:
|Christian M. Longo v. Jeff Premo (S061072) (original mandamus proceeding involving an order from the Marion County Circuit Court).|
Relator Christian M. Longo is the petitioner in a post-conviction case, and adverse party Jeff Premo, Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, is the defendant in the post-conviction case. Petitioner moved for a protective order with respect to any privileged materials obtained by defendant through the discovery process, which would limit use of the privileged materials to representatives of the Attorney General's Office, and only for the purpose of litigating the claims presented in petitioner's petition for post-conviction relief. The proposed protective order would have prohibited disclosure of privileged materials to any other persons or agencies, including law enforcement or prosecutorial personnel, without an order from the post-conviction court. The post-conviction court denied the motion for protective order and ordered petitioner to provide defendant's counsel with the requested discovery.
Petitioner challenged that order in a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed the petition and issued an alternative writ of mandamus.
The issue in this mandamus proceeding is whether, in a post-conviction proceeding, the post-conviction court may deny a motion for a protective order that would allow for the discovery of privileged, confidential attorney-client communications and work product matters within the post-conviction proceeding itself, but limit the distribution and use of such material outside the confines of the post-conviction proceeding.
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: