Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
7844
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 05/17/2023 APPROVING the Parties' agreements regarding the IDTT Staffing - Patient Attendance dispute, and the IDTT Staffing - Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (PNP) Participation dispute, with the understanding that the term "noncompliant" REFERS to noncompliance with the relevant Program Guide requirement. Accordingly, the Court deems these two disputes RESOLVED. (Rodriguez, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DONALD SPECTER – 083925
STEVEN FAMA – 099641
MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583
PRISON LAW OFFICE
1917 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710-1916
Telephone: (510) 280-2621
CLAUDIA CENTER – 158255
DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION
AND DEFENSE FUND, INC.
Ed Roberts Campus
3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210
Berkeley, California 94703-2578
Telephone: (510) 644-2555
10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
ERNEST GALVAN – 196065
LISA ELLS – 243657
JENNY S. YELIN – 273601
THOMAS NOLAN – 169692
MICHAEL S. NUNEZ – 280535
AMY XU – 330707
CARA E. TRAPANI – 313411
MARC J. SHINN-KRANTZ – 312968
ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631
GINGER JACKSON-GLEICH – 324454
ADRIENNE PON HARROLD – 326640
ARIELLE W. TOLMAN – 342635
ROSEN BIEN
GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, California 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
15 RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,
Case No. 2:90-CV-00520-KJM-DB
16
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA
DISPUTES
17
Plaintiffs,
v.
18 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
19
Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19601794.2 [4288892.9]
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES
1
On April 10, 2023, Defendants filed objections to the Special Master’s March 9,
2 2023 Report and Recommendations Regarding Third-Level Data Remediation Disputes
3 (ECF No. 7755 or “Third-Level Data Report”). See ECF No. 7805. Plaintiffs requested,
4 and the Court granted, leave to respond to Defendants’ objections by April 24, 2023. See
5 Apr. 17, 2023 Minute Order, ECF No. 7810. The Court required Plaintiffs to update the
6 Court on whether any of the compromises Defendants proposed in their objections
7 “suggest a resolution of outstanding disputes acceptable to Plaintiffs and that meets with
8 the approval of the Special Master.” Id. In light of the Court’s Order, the parties agreed to
9 meet with the Special Master team to discuss whether any of the identified disputes could
10 be narrowed based on Defendants’ proposed compromises. See ECF No. 7820 at 2. The
11 parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, a seven-day extension for Plaintiffs to respond to
12 Defendants’ objections until May 1, 2023. See Apr. 24, 2023 Minute Order, ECF
13 No. 7821. Plaintiffs filed their response on May 1, 2023. See ECF No. 7825.
14
The parties met and conferred on April 27, 2023 and reached agreement on two of
15 the four third-level data disputes before the Court, specifically the disputes pertaining to
16 the “IDTT Staffing” indicator (patient attendance and psychiatric nurse practitioner (PNP)
17 attendance). This stipulation memorializes the parties’ agreements, which the Special
18 Master has approved. The parties request that the Court approve these compromises.
19 I.
IDTT STAFFING – PATIENT ATTENDANCE
20
The parties agree that rather than modifying the existing IDTT Staffing indicator to
21 measure patient attendance, Defendants will create a new indicator measuring whether
22 patients are attending their IDTTs. The details and methodology of that indicator will be
23 negotiated between the stakeholders during the data remediation process. Defendants
24 commit to start creating the documentation for this new indicator as soon as the
25 documentation stage is complete for the other provisionally approved indicators, and will
26 work with Plaintiffs and the Special Master to complete the IDTT Patient Attendance
27 indicator through the normal data remediation processes. The Special Master approved
28 this compromise.
19601794.2 [4288892.9]
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES
1 II.
2
3
IDTT STAFFING – PSYCHIATRY NURSE PRACTITIONER (PNP)
PARTICIPATION
The parties agree that Defendants will revise the existing IDTT Staffing indicator
4 methodology to count an IDTT as noncompliant if a PNP attends an IDTT for any patient
5 above the CCCMS level of care.1 The Special Master approved this compromise.
6
7
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
8
9
10 DATED: May 16, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
11
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
12
13
14
By: /s/ Cara E. Trapani
Cara E. Trapani
15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
17 DATED: May 16, 2023
18
19
20
ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
DAMON MCCLAIN
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Namrata Kotwani
By:
NAMRATA KOTWANI
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
Although not central to resolving the dispute, Defendants are exploring the creation of a
27 separate unusual events flag to measure when a PNP attends IDTTs at the EOP or higher
levels of care. This indicator would not be developed until after the end of data
28 remediation.
19601794.2 [4288892.9]
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES
1 DATED: May 16, 2023
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
2
3
By:
/s/ Samantha Wolff
PAUL B. MELLO
SAMANTHA D. WOLFF
Attorneys for Defendants
4
5
6
7
ORDER
8
Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court
9 approves the parties’ agreements regarding the IDTT Staffing – Patient Attendance
10 dispute, and the IDTT Staffing – Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (PNP) Participation
11 dispute, with the understanding that the term “noncompliant” refers to noncompliance with
12 the relevant Program Guide requirement. Accordingly, the Court deems these two disputes
13 resolved.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 17, 2023.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19601794.2 [4288892.9]
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES
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?