What is the test for granting a motion for a habeas corpus petition based on allegations of juror misconduct?

Like People v. Duran, supra, the instant petition is untimely, fails to show due diligence, and fails to make a prima facie showing that release of the juror identifying information is for a lawful purpose. (Code Civ. Proc., 206, subd. (g).) The same purported juror misconduct was investigated at trial, was the subject of a motion for new trial, and was reviewed in the 2008 appeal. At

[235 Cal.App.4th 1244]

the hearing on the instant petition, appellant's new attorney stated that if the court released the juror information I [will] be able to determine whether [juror misconduct] could even be a valid issue to bring on a habeas [corpus] petition. The trial court found that it was a fishing expedition and noted that the juror misconduct claim was rejected both at trial and on appeal. It would have been an abuse of discretion for the court to grant the petition six years after the conviction and appeal. (See e.g., People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 604, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076 ; In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225, 42 Cal.Rptr. 9, 397 P.2d 1001 [habeas corpus petition barred where same issue raised and rejected on appeal].)