Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
7695
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 01/03/23 GRANTING 7693 Special Master's Request for Extension of Time; VACATING the part of paragraph 4 of the 7216 Court's 07/01/21 Order, requiring the Special Master to r eport his findings on the functionality and efficacy of the provisionally approved list of CQIT indicators as part of hisTwenty-Ninth Round Monitoring Report. By 06/30/23, the Special Master shall file a brief report on the status of data remediation generally and as it pertains to finalization of the list of CQIT indicators in particular. (Benson, A.)
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7695 Filed 01/04/23 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
12
Plaintiffs,
13
14
15
v.
No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P
ORDER
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
On December 30, 2022, the Special Master filed a request for an extension of time to report
19
to the court the functionality and efficacy of the provisionally approved list of Continuous Quality
20
Improvement Tool (CQIT) indicators. ECF No. 7693. Currently the Special Master is required to
21
“test and monitor the functionality and efficacy” of the provisionally approved CQIT indicators
22
“during his Twenty-Ninth Monitoring Round and [to] report his findings to the court in his Twenty-
23
Ninth Monitoring Round Report.” July 1, 2021 Order, ECF No. 7216, at 14. In his request for
24
extension of time, the Special Master reports he has completed his Twenty-Ninth Monitoring
25
Round using those indicators, “which were integrated into his monitoring process.” ECF No. 7693
26
at 2. The Special Master also reports that finalization of the complete list of CQIT indicators “is
27
progressing jointly” with the ongoing data remediation process, that “the efficacy and functionality
28
1
Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-DB Document 7695 Filed 01/04/23 Page 2 of 2
1
of the indicators is intertwined with data remediation,” and that “[a] complete list [of CQIT
2
indicators] will only emerge at the conclusion of the data remediation project.” Id. He represents
3
that an interim assessment of the functionality and efficacy of the CQIT indicators “would not
4
provide the court with the information needed to decide whether to grant final approval.” Id.
5
For the foregoing reasons, the Special Master requests that the court (1) vacate its order
6
requiring a report on the functionality and efficacy of the CQIT indicators as part of the Special
7
Master’s Twenty-Ninth Monitoring Round reporting; and (2) that the deadline for submission of
8
such a report be extended to the conclusion of the data remediation project. The Special Master
9
reports that defendants’ current data remediation activation schedules “indicate that all
10
provisionally approved indicators should be remediated by the end of 2023” and that the parties are
11
discussing steps that would enable completion of data remediation by that time. Id. at 3 n.5, 4 n.6.
12
He also recommends “that he be directed to provide brief updates at intervals to be determined by
13
the Court on the progress of the data remediation project.” Id. at 5. After review, and good cause
14
appearing, the Special Master’s request will be granted and his recommendation adopted.
15
16
17
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Special Master’s December 30, 2022 request for extension of time, ECF No.
7693, is GRANTED;
18
2. That part of paragraph 4 of the court’s July 1, 2021 order, ECF No. 7216,
19
requiring the Special Master to report his findings on the functionality and
20
efficacy of the provisionally approved list of CQIT indicators as part of his
21
Twenty-Ninth Round Monitoring Report is VACATED; and
22
3. On or before June 30, 2023, the Special Master shall file a brief report on the
23
status of data remediation generally and as it pertains to finalization of the list
24
of CQIT indicators in particular.
25
DATED: January 3, 2023.
26
27
28
2
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?