Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
1708
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/13/11 DENYING 1698 and 1700 Motions to Compel. Plaintiffs experts are free to engage in informal discussions with the CDCR state representative present during the inspections. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JERRY VALDIVIA, et al.,
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV S-94-0671 LKK GGH
vs.
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
ORDER
/
16
Plaintiffs’ motions to compel inspections of hearing locations for parole
17
revocation proceedings with respect to Placer and Sacramento County jails came on for hearing
18
on October 13, 2011.1 Kenneth Walczak appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Valerie Flood
19
represented third party Placer County. Renju Jacob appeared for defendants. Specifically at
20
issue was whether the non-parties counties should be compelled to permit plaintiffs’ experts to
21
conduct informal interviews with staff at the county jails in the Counties of Placer and
22
23
24
25
26
1
There was some issue as to whether the matter was properly before the undersigned
instead of the Special Master in this case as provisions governing the tasks of the Special Master
include discovery. Also not settled was the issue of whether the defendant Counties were
“parties” as far as the injunction was concerned, i.e., were the Counties now in privity with
CDCR especially after the recent “state realignment” concerning prisoner custody. However,
none of the parties believed that this discovery motion should be heard by the Special Master.
Accordingly, the undersigned heard the motion.
1
1
Sacramento while plaintiffs engage in on-site operations inspections and video recordings of the
2
hearing locations in these counties for parole revocation hearings of class members. At the
3
hearing, counsel for Placer County stated that a CDCR state representative would be present for
4
the inspections.
5
6
For the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, the court makes the
following ORDERS:
7
1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel non-party Sacramento County to permit informal
8
interviews with Sacramento County jail staff at any site in the county where parole revocation
9
hearing location inspections are to be conducted by plaintiffs, filed on October 5, 2011 (docket #
10
1698), is denied; and
11
2. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel non-party Placer County to permit informal
12
interviews with Placer County jail staff at any site in the county where plaintiffs’ inspections of
13
parole hearing locations are to be conducted, filed on October 7, 2011 (docket # 1700), is denied.
14
3. Plaintiffs’ experts are free to engage in informal discussions with the CDCR
15
state representative present during the inspections.
16
DATED: October 13, 2011
17
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
GGH:009
vald0671..ord
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?