Dunn et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 2968

ORDER directing that: (1) The parties are each to file a summary recounting their recollection of what they each said during the September 17 conference call regarding each of the issues set forth above. The parties are also to indicate whether th ey have any objection to the hearings on the inpatient treatment and segregation-like issues being continued generally; (2) These summaries are due on 9/21/2020, at 9:00 a.m.; (3) Each of the parties may also file a response and supplement to their recollection after these summaries are filed. Any response to the summaries is due on 9/23/2020, at 9:00 a.m., as further set out in order Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/18/2020. (djy, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
EDWARD BRAGGS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his
official capacity as
Commissioner of
the Alabama Department of
Corrections, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv601-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
It has come to the court’s attention that the court
reporter was regrettably and inadvertently not present
for

the

conference

call

on

September

17,

2020,

and

therefore there is neither a recording nor a transcript
of

the

call.

The

court

must

now

determine

how

to

reconstruct the record of the call so that it may be
preserved

for

current

reference

and

for

proceedings before this court or on appeal.

any

later

In light of

the fact that the call consisted mainly of the parties’
arguments, with no sworn testimony offered, the court

believes that the best way to proceed is for each of the
parties to submit a summary memorializing the arguments
they made during the call regarding each of the topics
discussed.

These topics are:

(1) The

status

of

the

inpatient

remedy

and

segregation-like issues;
(2) Clarification of the defendants’ concerns about
the remedial stipulations due to COVID-19;
(3) Clarification of which orders or provisions the
defendants have moved to terminate;
(4) The
long-term

defendants’

position

suicide-prevention

order

on
and

whether

the

stipulations

(doc. nos. 2699 & 2699-1) are currently terminable; and
(5) Explanation from the plaintiffs of whether they
believe the defendants have failed to comply with any of
the court’s orders or the parties’ stipulations outside
the context of suicide-prevention;
(6) The defendants’ response to the court’s order
(doc. no. 2960) for clarification of the “duplicative,
inconsistent,

and/or

moot”
2

category,

whether

the

defendants’ response complied with the order, and the
timeline for the plaintiffs’ response.
If the court has overlooked any topic discussed
during the call, the parties are free to include it in
their written summaries.
The court believes that the only issue that was
decided during the conference call was that the scheduled
hearings on the inpatient treatment and segregation-like
issues

would

be

continued

pending

consideration

resolution of the motion to terminate.
not

believe

that

there

was

any

and

The court does

objection

to

this

proposal, but if the court is mistaken, the parties
should so indicate in their filings.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The parties are each to file a summary recounting
their recollection of what they each said during the
September 17 conference call regarding each of the issues
set forth above. The parties are also to indicate whether
they have any objection to the hearings on the inpatient
3

treatment and segregation-like issues being continued
generally.
(2) These summaries are due on September 21, 2020,
at 9:00 a.m.
(3) Each of the parties may also file a response and
supplement to their recollection after these summaries
are filed.

Any response to the summaries is due on

September 23, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
DONE, this the 18th of September, 2020.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4