Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2231

ORDER by Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Lawrence K. Karlton, and Thelton E. Henderson on 2217 Plaintiffs' motion to compel re: population reduction plan. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 v. v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P THREE-JUDGE COURT

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants. MARCIANO PLATA, et al., Plaintiffs,

NO. C01-1351 THE THREE-JUDGE COURT ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel defendants to consult with plaintiffs

21 concerning defendants' proposed population reduction plan and to produce to plaintiffs data 22 relevant to evaluation of that plan. Specifically, plaintiffs seek an order requiring defendants 23 to immediately provide plaintiffs with notice of the population reduction measures 24 defendants are "actively considering" and data necessary to analyze those measures, to 25 provide plaintiffs with their proposed plan not later than twenty-four hours in advance of 26 meeting with plaintiffs, and to meet with plaintiffs not later than September 10, 2009. 27 Defendants oppose the motion. 28

1

Pursuant to this court's August 4, 2009 order, defendants are required to submit to the

2 court by September 18, 2009 a proposed plan to reduce the population of CDCR's adult 3 prisons, in no more than two years, to 137.5% of their combined design capacity. Plaintiffs' 4 motion arises from the requirement in the August 4, 2009 order that: 5 6 7 8 9 in preparing their plan, defendants shall consult with plaintiffs, intervenors, and other relevant stakeholders, including the Coleman Special Master and the Plata Receiver. Should such consultation fail to resolve any objections to the proposed population reduction plan, plaintiffs and intervenors shall file their objections no more than 20 days after defendants file their proposed plan, and defendants shall file responses to such objections no more than 10 days thereafter.

10 Aug. 4, 2009 Opinion & Order at 183. 11 The core of plaintiffs' motion centers on defendants' refusal, thus far, to provide to

12 plaintiffs data to evaluate defendants' proposed population reduction measures. With the 13 motion, plaintiffs present evidence that on August 21, 2009, they requested that defendants 14 provide plaintiffs and their expert, Dr. Austin, with the following data files for purposes of 15 evaluating defendants' proposed population reduction measures: (1) prison admissions for 16 the last 12 months; (2) prison releases for the last 12 months; (3) the current prisoner 17 population; (4) the current parolee population; and (5) parole releases for the last 12 months, 18 with each file containing offense, sentence, classification and risk assessment, and 19 demographics for the respective category. Ex. A to Evenson Decl. Plaintiffs represent that 20 defendants have previously provided the "same core data elements" to their expert, Dr. James 21 Austin.1 Id. On August 27, 2009, defendants informed plaintiffs that they would not provide 22 the requested information. Id. On September 1, 2009, plaintiffs again requested the 23 information and a response by noon on September 2, 2009. Ex. B to Evenson Decl. 24 Plaintiffs represent that they did not receive a response to the September 1, 2009 e-mail. The 25 instant motion was filed at 2:05 p.m. on September 2, 2009. 26 27 Dr. Austin served on the CDCR's Expert Panel on Adult Offender Recidivism 28 Reduction Programming. See Aug. 4, 2009 Opinion & Order at 45 n.39. 2
1

1

Defendants oppose the motion on grounds that (1) any meeting prior to the end of the

2 current session of the California legislature on September 11, 2009, would be premature; 3 (2) the document production request is unduly burdensome; and (3) plaintiffs have failed to 4 comply with procedures set forth in Eastern District of California Local Rule 37-251 5 governing discovery disputes, specifically, the preparation of a joint statement regarding the 6 dispute. 7 After review of the motion and the opposition thereto, and good cause appearing,

8 defendants are required to provide the information requested to plaintiffs on or before 9 September 18, 2009. Plaintiffs' request to advance the meeting presently set for 10 September 14, 2009 is denied. The August 4, 2009 order contemplates an alternative process 11 to resolve objections to any proposed plan in the event that consultation between the parties 12 prior to submission of the plan fails to do so. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 09/11/09 17 18 19 20 Dated: 09/11/09 21 22 23 24 Dated: 09/11/09 25 26 27 28 3 THELTON E. HENDERSON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAWRENCE K. KARLTON SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA /s/ STEPHEN REINHARDT UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS