Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 7244

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/20/2021 GRANTING 7242 Stipulation. All motions shall be filed and noticed for hearing on this court's regular law and motion calendar in accordance with Local Rule 230 (E.D.Cal.). The motions shall be noticed for hearing so that all fact discovery will be completed by 10/29/2021. (Tupolo, A)

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7244 Filed 07/21/21 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

ROB BONTA, State Bar No. 202668
Attorney General of California
MONICA N. ANDERSON, State Bar No. 182970
Senior Assistant Attorney General
DAMON MCCLAIN, State Bar No. 209508
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
ELISE OWENS THORN, State Bar No. 145931
NAMRATA KOTWANI, State Bar No. 308741
Deputy Attorneys General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants

9
10
11

HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
PAUL B. MELLO, State Bar No. 179755
SAMANTHA D. WOLFF, State Bar No. 240280
LAUREL E. O’CONNOR, State Bar No. 305478
DAVID C. CASARRUBIAS, State Bar No. 321994
1676 N. California Boulevard, Suite 620
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
ROMAN M. SILBERFELD, State Bar No. 62783
GLENN A. DANAS, State Bar No. 270317
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Special Counsel for Defendants

12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15
16
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Case No. 2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC)

17
18
v.
19
20

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND ORDER
GRANTING JOINT REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO FILE DISCOVERY
MOTIONS

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Judge: The Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

21

Defendants.

22
23

On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff-Intervenor Christopher Lipsey (Lipsey) was granted leave to

24

conduct discovery on his claim that the use of Guard One causes sleep deprivation in violation of

25

the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (ECF No. 7191.) On June 3, 2021,

26

Lipsey served Defendant Kathleen Allison with his third set of requests for production of

27

documents, numbered 31 through 59. On July 6, 2021, Defendants responded to Lipsey’s

28

discovery requests, stating objections along with their responses.
[3653490.1]
1
Stip. and Order Granting Parties’ Jnt. Req. for Leave to File Discovery Motions (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))
17712487.1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7244 Filed 07/21/21 Page 2 of 4
1

The parties have met and conferred regarding Lipsey’s third set of requests for production

2

of documents and Defendants’ objections to those requests. Although they have reached an

3

agreement to limit some of the requests and to continue to work to resolve issues with other

4

requests, they are at an impasse with respect to issues related to Request Nos. 35, 36, 41, 42, 43,

5

47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 56. The Special Master attended the parties’ conference on June 29, but he

6

has not taken a position on this dispute.

7

Defendants seek an order under Rule 26 limiting the scope of Lipsey’s discovery requests

8

to documents that are relevant to his claim that the Guard One system makes noise that interrupts

9

his sleep. Specifically, Defendants want an order that precludes discovery of the following

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

documents and issues:
1. Documents related to suicides or attempted suicides, and training related to suicide
prevention sought in Requests Nos. 35, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 56;
2. Documents that seek internal communications concerning an analysis of the costs and
benefits of the Guard One system sought in Request No. 36;
3. Documents related to the costs associated with the purchase of the Guard One system and
the benefits of the Guard One system sought in Request No. 41;
4. Documents related to individual officers’ compliance with the welfare check program
sought in Request No. 42; and
5. Documents related to individual officers’ compliance with the Guard One Order sought
in Request No. 43.
Because none of these requests pertain to “the claim for which intervention has been

22

authorized: that the Guard One suicide prevention monitoring system ‘causes sleep deprivation in

23

violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution,’” Defendants will seek to

24

limit the scope of Lipsey’s above requests, which exceed this scope. (See ECF No. 7191 at 1:26-

25

2:1.) Defendants also dispute Lipsey’s asserted connection between the requested documents and

26

his potential claim that Defendants lack of penological interest in monitoring their staff. Suicides

27

and suicide attempts are not relevant to that question. And the cost-benefit analysis Lipsey seeks

28
[3653490.1]

2

Stip. and Order Granting Parties’ Jnt. Req. for Leave to File Discovery Motions (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))
17712487.1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7244 Filed 07/21/21 Page 3 of 4
1

is likewise not the test applied to determine whether the regulation at issue satisfies a legitimate

2

penological goal.

3

Lipsey seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to the requests identified above as

4

propounded because discovery regarding the alleged penological interest in using Guard One,

5

including its efficacy and the availability of any reasonable alternatives, is relevant to

6

Defendants’ potential defense that any penological interests in using Guard One defeat Lipsey’s

7

Eighth Amendment claim. For example, Lipsey anticipates that the Secretary may argue that the

8

Guard One system is necessary to adequately ensure compliance with the welfare check program

9

and thus reduce the number of inmate suicides, and that the penological interest in reducing

10

suicides in turn affects the Eighth Amendment analysis. Lipsey offered to withdraw his requests

11

related to this issue if Defendants agreed to stipulate that they will not make this type of

12

argument, but Defendants declined to do so. Because Defendants have left open their option to

13

make this argument, Lipsey seeks to take discovery into its factual premises.

14

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and jointly request leave to file their respective discovery

15

motions under Fed.R.Civ.P 26 and Local Rule 251.

16

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

17

Dated: July 20, 2021

ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
DAMON MCCLAIN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General

18
19

/s/ Elise Owens Thorn
ELISE OWENS THORN
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants

20
21
22

Dated: July 20, 2021

REICHMAN JORGENSEN LEHMAN &
FELDBERG LLP

23

/s/ Kate Falkenstien
Kate Falkenstien
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor

24
25
26
27
28
[3653490.1]

3

Stip. and Order Granting Parties’ Jnt. Req. for Leave to File Discovery Motions (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))
17712487.1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7244 Filed 07/21/21 Page 4 of 4
1

Good cause appearing, the parties’ joint request is GRANTED. All motions shall be filed

2

and noticed for hearing on this court’s regular law and motion calendar in accordance with Local

3

Rule 230 (E.D.Cal.). The motions shall be noticed for hearing so that all fact discovery will be

4

completed by October 29, 2021. See ECF No. 7191 at 2.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
Dated:
7

July 20, 2021
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[3653490.1]

4

Stip. and Order Granting Parties’ Jnt. Req. for Leave to File Discovery Motions (2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB (PC))
17712487.1