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