Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 2673

THREE JUDGE COURT ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/8/08 GRANTING IN PART 2650 Motion for Reconsideration. Intervenors participation in discovery will be prospective only. The court VACATES its 10/10/07 order bifurcating proceedings. Discovery and trial in this matter shall occur in a single consolidated proceeding.(Dillon, M)

(PC) Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Doc. 2673

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 On January 28, 2008, the Republican Assembly and Senate Intervenors, District v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. v. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. C01-1351 TEH THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER GRANTING IN PART INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING PROCEEDINGS RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P THREE-JUDGE COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

23 Attorney Intervenors, and Sheriff, Probation, Police Chief, and Corrections Intervenors 24 (collectively, "Intervenors") filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's October 10, 25 2007 Order Bifurcating Proceedings and Setting Deadlines for Phase I and November 9, 26 2007 Order on Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification. Defendants filed a statement 27 of non-opposition to the motion on February 4, 2008, and Plaintiffs filed a statement of non28 opposition on February 7, 2008.

Dockets.Justia.com

1

After reviewing the Intervenors' arguments, the court rejects Intervenors' contention

2 that defendants are inadequate representatives of the Intervenors' interests on the questions 3 of whether "crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right" and whether 4 "no other relief [other than a prisoner release order] will remedy the violation of the Federal 5 right." Oct. 10, 2007 Order at 3 (quoting 18 U.S.C. §§ 3626(a)(3)(E)(i)-(ii)). The court 6 further rejects the Intervenors' repeated assertion that this court erred when it bifurcated 7 these proceedings into two phases and limited the Intervenors' participation to the second 8 phase. 9 Nonetheless, upon careful reconsideration of the court's prior scheduling orders and

10 of the procedures that are most likely to expedite the proceedings, including discovery and 11 trial, the court hereby GRANTS IN PART the Intervenors' motion for reconsideration. 12 Intervenors shall be allowed to participate in all stages of these proceedings, subject to the 13 following limitations: 14 1. Intervenors' participation in discovery will be prospective only. Intervenors will

15 not seek to reopen any matter unless they are able to demonstrate good cause. The 16 magistrate judge shall determine whether this standard has been met in the first instance. 17 2. All discovery exchanged between plaintiffs and defendants to date shall be

18 provided to intervenors as soon as possible. 19 3. One attorney will represent all intervenors for further discovery propounded by

20 intervenors. Similarly, one attorney will represent all intervenors at future depositions. This 21 attorney may be a different attorney on each occasion. 22 4. If any discovery is directed to a particular group of intervenors (e.g., probation

23 officers or Republican legislators), counsel representing that group of intervenors shall 24 respond. 25 5. At trial, one attorney may question each witness on behalf of all intervenors. The

26 same attorney need not question all witnesses. Intervenors will, however, present their 27 evidence and question other parties' witnesses through not more than a total of three different 28 attorneys throughout the trial. 2

1

6. One attorney will represent all intervenors during any subsequent motion practice,

2 including discovery motions. This need not be the same attorney for each motion. 3 7. The above conditions apply to all intervenors who intervened on behalf of

4 defendants, and not simply those who joined in the Intervenors' January 28, 2008 motion for 5 reconsideration. 6 Beyond reconsidering the level of participation granted to intervenors, this court has

7 also reconsidered, sua sponte, the desirability of a bifurcated trial. The court now concludes 8 that it would be more efficient to move forward with a single proceeding and therefore 9 VACATES its October 10, 2007 order bifurcating proceedings. Discovery and trial in this 10 matter shall occur in a single consolidated proceeding. The court will set time limits for trial 11 after reviewing the parties' and intervenors' joint pretrial conference statement. 12 In light of the above changes to the court's management of this case, the parties,

13 including intervenors, shall arrange for an initial discovery conference before the magistrate 14 judge. As soon as practicable, the magistrate judge shall advise this court of a reasonable 15 discovery cut-off date. Once such a date can be ascertained, this court will reset all other 16 pretrial dates as appropriate. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: 02/08/08 21 22 23 24 Dated: 02/08/08 25 26 27 28 3 LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA /s/ STEPHEN REINHARDT UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

1 2 3 Dated: 02/08/08 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 4 THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA