Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
8227
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/2/2024 GRANTING plaintiffs 14 days from the date of this order in which to file a full response to Section III of 879 Objections to the Sixth Re-Audit Report. Defendants will be GRANTED 7 days thereafter to file a reply. (Huang, H)
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
13
14
No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
On March 1, 2024, as required by court order, Feb. 26, 2024 Minute Order, ECF No.
18
8137, the Special Master filed his Report on his Expert’s Sixth Re-Audit Report of Suicide
19
Prevention Practices in the Prisons of the California Department of Corrections and
20
Rehabilitation and Re-Audit of Suicide Prevention Practices in the Psychiatric Inpatient
21
Programs, together with the Expert’s Sixth Re-Audit Report, ECF Nos. 8143, 8143-1, “directly
22
and without circulation of a draft report to the parties,” ECF No. 8137. As authorized by the
23
court, ECF No. 8137, on April 1, 2024, defendants filed objections to the Sixth Re-Audit Report.
24
ECF No. 8179.
25
On April 3, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Request for Leave to Respond to Defendants’
26
Objections to Special Master’s Sixth Re-Audit Report and for Order Requesting Special Master to
27
Respond to Objections.” ECF No. 8185. On April 4, 2024, defendants filed an opposition to
28
plaintiffs’ request, contending plaintiffs improperly seek relief from the court’s February 26, 2024
1
1
minute order without complying with the requirements of the court’s December 24, 2020 order,
2
ECF No. 7003, specifically the requirement that
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
any party seeking relief from this court, including from any existing order of this
court, must first file a request for leave to file a motion, describing with particularity
the relief to be sought and the steps the party has taken to exhaust meet and confer
efforts with all opposing counsel. The request also should describe communications
with the Special Master regarding the proposed motion as part of the requester’s due
diligence in determining whether the parties are at impasse. Any such request must
not exceed five (5) pages. The court will not entertain any motion unless a request
for leave to file that complies with this order is first filed and then the court grants
it.
Dec. 24, 2020 Order at 2, ECF No. 7003.
On April 8, 2024, the court granted plaintiffs’ request in part and directed the parties to
14
file, sequentially, focused briefing on Section III of defendants’ General Objections. See
15
generally Apr. 8, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8192. In their responsive brief, ECF No. 8198, and at a
16
status conference on April 26, 2024, plaintiffs requested an opportunity to provide a more
17
comprehensive response to all of defendants objections, including those raised in Section III. The
18
court now makes express what was implicit in the April 8, 2024 order. Plaintiffs’ April 3, 2024
19
request does not fall within the category of requests for relief from this court for which
20
compliance with the December 24, 2020 order is required. In accordance with longstanding
21
practice in this action, any party who seeks to file a response to briefing filed by an opposing
22
party where such a response is not explicitly authorized by court order must seek leave of court to
23
file the response, but is not required to comply with the December 24, 2020 order before filing
24
that request.
25
Good cause appearing, plaintiffs will be granted fourteen days from the date of this order
26
in which to file a full response to Section III of defendants’ objections to the Sixth Re-Audit
27
Report. Defendants will be granted seven days thereafter to file a reply to plaintiffs’ response.
28
29
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 2, 2024.
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?