Emma C., et al v. Eastin, et al
Filing
2013
ORDER Re: Process to Approve and Implement CDE Corrective Action Plan Per the Court's July 2, 2014 Order. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 01/15/15. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/15/2015)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
EMMA C., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
5
6
7
8
v.
DELAINE EASTIN, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 96-cv-04179-TEH
ORDER RE: PROCESS TO
APPROVE AND IMPLEMENT CDE
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PER
THE COURT’S JULY 2, 2014 ORDER
9
10
In its July 2, 2014 Order, the Court directed the Court Monitor to develop a
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) to achieve the outcomes set forth in the Monitor’s January
12
9, 2014 Determinations Report regarding the CDE’s statewide monitoring system. The
13
Court now informs the Parties of the process to approve and implement the draft CAP:
14
1. The Monitor expects to send the draft CAP to the Parties by February 13, 2015.
15
2. After receiving the draft CAP, the Parties have three weeks to submit
16
comments/objections to the Monitor. As the July 2 Order upheld the January 9
17
Determinations, any objections to the draft CAP shall not include objections to the
18
substance of the Determinations. This will not constitute a waiver of those objections.
19
20
21
3. There will then be a 30 day meet and confer period between the Parties and the Monitor
regarding the submitted comments/objections.
4. The Monitor shall then file a memorandum with the Court addressing the
22
comments/objections made by the Parties, and submitting the draft CAP for approval.
23
5. The Parties then have three weeks to file motions formally objecting to the draft CAP.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28
Dated: 01/15/15
_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge
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?