Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
4860
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 10/7/13 ORDERING that Paragraph 2.b of the Court's 9/26/13 Order, which provides, Any member of the public or press who views the videos is prohibited from publicly disclosing the names, identification numbers, or other personally-identifying information of any inmate or any peace officer or other employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) who may appear in any such video, is VACATED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/DAD (PC)
v.
ORDER
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Pursuant to court order, this matter was set for evidentiary
17
18
hearing on September 26, 2013 on, inter alia, plaintiffs’ motion
19
for enforcement of court orders and affirmative relief related to
20
use of force and disciplinary measures.
21
start of the hearing was continued to October 1, 2013.
By subsequent order, the
On September 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion in limine
22
23
to exclude or limit presentation by plaintiffs of use of force
24
videos at said hearing.1
25
court denied defendants’ motion in limine insofar as it sought
26
1
27
28
By order filed September 26, 2013, the
Use of force videos are made by defendants pursuant to state
regulation and were made available to plaintiffs and their expert
during prison tours. See Plfs.’ Opp. to Defs.’ MIL No. 6, filed
September 19, 2013 (ECF No. 4820) at 2.
1
1
exclusion of the videos or their review in camera.
2
September 26, 2013 (ECF No. 4833) at 2.
3
any video offered and accepted into evidence at the evidentiary
4
hearing will be shown in open court subject to a protective
5
order.
6
paragraph 2b. that “[a]ny member of the public or press who views
7
the videos is prohibited from publicly disclosing the names,
8
identification numbers, or other personally-identifying
9
information of any inmate or peace officer or other employee of
Order filed
The order provides that
The protective order provides, in relevant part, at
10
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
11
(CDCR) who may appear in any such video.”
12
September 26, 2013 order was based on the court’s determinations
13
that (1) the issues raised by plaintiffs’ motion are of great
14
public interest and significance; and (2) the identity of
15
individuals depicted in the videos are irrelevant to the
16
proceedings and of no public interest and those individuals have
17
privacy interests otherwise protected by law.
18
2013 order was entered to balance those interests.
19
Id. at 2-3.
The
The September 26,
On September 30, 2013, Los Angeles Times Communications LLC
20
(Los Angeles Times) filed a motion to intervene in this action in
21
order to seek modification of that part of the protective order
22
quoted supra, which the Los Angeles Times challenges as a prior
23
restraint in violation of the First Amendment.
24
the evidentiary hearing on October 1, 2013, the court granted the
25
motion to intervene in open court and heard argument on the
26
motion to modify the protective order, after which the court made
27
the oral ruling now reduced to writing herein.
28
2
At the start of
1
There is no dispute that the videos depict members of the
2
plaintiff class, all of whom are seriously mentally ill.
3
identities of class members have been protected by a protective
4
order since early in this action.
5
1991 (Doc. No. 90).2
6
employees depicted in these video recordings acted ultra vires;
7
rather, plaintiffs assert that these employees are carrying out
8
their duties in accordance with the policies and procedures
9
currently in effect. As such, the identities of the CDCR
The
See Order filed September 12,
Nor do the parties contend that the CDCR
10
employees and the class members depicted are completely
11
irrelevant to the court’s consideration of this issues at bar.
12
After consideration of the arguments by counsel for the Los
13
Angeles Times and by counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, the
14
court entertained and granted from the bench a joint motion by
15
plaintiffs and defendants to strike any personally-identifying
16
information inadvertently shown during the playing of the videos
17
from the record of these proceedings.
18
irrelevant and will not be admitted into evidence in these
19
proceedings for any purpose.
20
Such information is
In accordance with the above, the court hereby orders as
21
follows:
22
[1]
23
which provides, “Any member of the public or press who views
24
the videos is prohibited from publicly disclosing the names,
25
identification numbers, or other personally-identifying
Paragraph 2.b of the court’s September 26, 2013 Order,
26
27
28
2
The protective order has been modified several times. See,
e.g., Modified Protective Order filed January 12, 2007 (ECF No.
2109).
3
1
information of any inmate or any peace officer or other
2
employee of the California Department of Corrections and
3
Rehabilitation (CDCR) who may appear in any such video,” is
4
VACATED.
5
6
[2] Any names, identification numbers, and other personally-
7
identifying information of any inmate and any peace officer
8
or other employee of the California Department of
9
Corrections and Rehabilitation who may appear in any video
10
shown during the evidentiary hearing is irrelevant to these
11
proceedings and will not be admitted into evidence for any
12
purpose.
13
during the playing of these tapes is STRICKEN from the
14
record of these proceedings, and for that reason may not be
15
disclosed by members of the press or the public in
16
attendance upon penalty of contempt of court. This order has
17
no application to information obtained by the press or
18
public independently of these proceedings.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
DATED:
Any such personal information inadvertently shown
October 7, 2013.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?