Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order compelling Idaho officials to provide discovery concerning the source, manufacture, acquisition, and characteristics of execution drugs sought for use in Gerald Ross Pizzuto’s potential execution. The court held that it had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine because disclosure of information potentially identifying the execution-drug supplier could cause harm that later appellate review could not remedy. It also held that Idaho’s execution-secrecy statute did not create an evidentiary privilege binding on a federal court in a federal-question case and that the ordered disclosures did not constitute an undue burden.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review an interlocutory discovery order concerning disclosure of information that might reveal the identity of Idaho's execution-drug supplier.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Pizzuto's discovery requests relevant.
- Whether Idaho Code § 19-2716A created an evidentiary privilege binding on a federal court in a federal-question case.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in applying a reasonable-degree-of-certainty standard and ordering disclosure of information that Idaho had not shown would identify its execution-drug supplier or otherwise impose an undue burden.
Holdings
- An interlocutory discovery order requiring disclosure of information that could identify a state's execution-drug supplier was reviewable under the collateral order doctrine because it conclusively determined the disputed question, resolved an issue separate from the merits, and could be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding relevant Pizzuto's requests concerning when the drugs were obtained, their geographic origin, and the type of company that formulated them.
- Idaho Code § 19-2716A did not create an evidentiary privilege binding on federal courts in federal-question cases, and the court declined to recognize a new federal evidentiary privilege for the identity of a state's execution-drug supplier.
- Information that would reasonably lead to identification of a state's execution-drug supplier unduly burdens the State, but speculative assertions that requested information could possibly lead to identification are insufficient. Applying a reasonable-degree-of-certainty standard, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the challenged disclosures.
Key quotations
“To fall within the narrow class of orders satisfying the Supreme Court’s collateral order doctrine, an order must (1) ‘conclusively determine the disputed question,’ (2) ‘resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action,’ and (3) ‘be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’” (15)
“We hold that disclosure of information that would reasonably lead to the identification of the State’s execution drug supplier unduly burdens the State.” (29)
“Pizzuto need not prove a negative by showing that Defendants’ answers will not lead to the identification of their supplier. Rather, Defendants must show good cause for shielding them from Pizzuto’s discovery requests.” (32)
Factual background
Gerald Ross Pizzuto, an Idaho death-row inmate, alleged that his medical conditions and Idaho's lethal-injection practices created a substantial risk of serious pain and suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He sought discovery concerning the origin, manufacture, acquisition, storage, and characteristics of Idaho's execution drugs, including pentobarbital. Idaho refused portions of the discovery, relying on its statutory execution-drug secrecy provision and asserting that disclosure could identify its drug supplier and impair its ability to carry out executions. The district court ordered disclosure of specified information but protected information that would identify the supplier to a reasonable degree of certainty.
Procedural history
Pizzuto brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that execution by lethal injection would violate the Eighth Amendment. The district court held that Idaho's execution-drug secrecy statute did not create a federal evidentiary privilege, applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and ordered defendants to provide specified discovery while withholding information that would identify the execution-drug supplier to a reasonable degree of certainty. Defendants appealed the March 2024 discovery order, and the Ninth Circuit held that the order was reviewable under the collateral order doctrine and affirmed.