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)

Download PDF
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?