Coleman, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
8295
ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/25/24 GRANTING IN PART 8256 Plaintiffs' 06/03/24 Request for Leave to Respond to Defendants' Objections to the Special Master's Telemental Health Report and Revised Poli cy. By 07/12/24, plaintiffs shall file their response to 8253 defendants' objections and defendants shall file their response to 8252 plaintiffs' objections. The parties have until 07/26/24 to file closing briefs and the court will then submit for decision without oral argument absent further order of the court. (Benson, A.)
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
15
No. 90-cv-0520 KJM DB
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
In December 15, 2023, the court ordered the Special Master to supervise the parties in
18
discussions aimed at clarifying “whether, and if so what, outstanding disputes remain over
19
defendants’ Telemental Health Services Policy” and, thereafter, to file a short report on the
20
outcome of those discussions together with a proposed Telemental Health Services policy for the
21
court’s approval. Dec. 15, 2023 Order at 2, ECF No. 8087. The Special Master filed his report
22
on March 21, 2024. ECF No. 8165. The court extended the deadline for the parties to respond to
23
the Special Master’s report. See Apr. 2, 2024 Am. Stip. and Order, ECF No. 8182. The parties
24
filed responses to the Special Master’s report on May 28, 2024. ECF Nos. 8252 (Pls.’ Objs.),
25
8253 (Defs.’ Resp.). Plaintiffs request the opportunity to respond to defendants’ objections, ECF
26
No. 8256, and defendants oppose in part, ECF No. 8258.
27
28
Plaintiffs seek permission to respond to defendants’ objections on the grounds that
defendants have in their objections advanced “both new argument and new expert evidence”;
1
1
plaintiffs seek to respond to the legal arguments and contend they have a right to contest the new
2
evidence. ECF No. 8256 at 1. Plaintiffs seek forty-five days to respond, claiming good cause is
3
shown by the “extensive expert testimony” presented by defendants, the numerous upcoming
4
deadlines in this case, other ongoing tasks in this action, and scheduled vacations. Id. at 2-3.
5
Defendants do not oppose plaintiffs’ request to respond to defendants’ objections and,
6
indeed, represent they will respond to plaintiffs’ filing if the court authorizes responses. ECF No.
7
8258 at 2. Defendants object to plaintiffs’ request for forty-five days to file their response,
8
contending the court should limit the time for responding given that (1) defendants shared their
9
Telemental Health Policy more than ten months ago; and (2) defendants will be prejudiced by
10
delay “particularly as they face impending contempt fines due to staffing vacancies.” Id.1
The extent to which defendants may rely on telepsychiatry and telemental health for the
11
12
delivery of mental health care to class members, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, has been
13
the subject of both agreement and dispute over the past several years. As it repeatedly has noted,
14
the court has never closed the door to further expansion of defendants’ use of telepsychiatry and
15
telemental health, through appropriate means. See, e.g., Rep.’s Tr. of Hr’g (RT 9/29/23) at 9–10,
16
ECF No. 8013. The Special Master’s March 21, 2024 report presents the court with the
17
opportunity to address the proper scope of that expansion. Given the significance of this issue
18
both for the adequacy of care provided to the plaintiff class and for defendants’ urgent need to
19
remedy ongoing understaffing and their proposed reliance on telemental health to aid this
20
remediation, the court sets the briefing schedule below to balance the competing interests at stake.
21
/////
22
/////
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
1
The court has now issued an order imposing civil contempt fines due to defendants’
ongoing noncompliance with the court’s orders to achieve constitutionally adequate mental health
staffing levels. June 25, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8291.
2
1
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
3
4
1.
Plaintiffs’ June 3, 2024 Request for Leave to Respond to Defendants’
Objections to the Special Master’s Telemental Health Report and Revised
Policy, ECF No. 8256, is granted in part.
5
6
7
8
9
2.
On or before July 12, 2024, plaintiffs shall file and serve their response to
defendants’ objections, ECF No. 8253, and defendants shall file and serve
their response to plaintiffs’ objections, ECF No. 8252. The parties shall
include in their respective briefs discussion of whether any issues raised by
the briefing is pending on appeal.
10
3.
The parties are granted until July 26, 2024. to file closing briefs.
11
12
4.
The court will then submit for decision without oral argument absent
further order of the court.
13
DATED: June 25, 2024.
3
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?