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