Plata et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 2596

ORDER extending time for court experts to complete written evaluations. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 04/18/13. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al.,

12

NO. C01-1351 TEH
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
COURT EXPERTS TO
COMPLETE WRITTEN
EVALUATIONS

Defendants.

13
14

On September 5, 2012, this Court ordered the three court experts to “complete a

15 written evaluation of any institution that receives an overall third-round OIG [Office of
16 Inspector General] score of 85% as soon as feasible, and no later than six months after the
17 publication of the OIG report awarding that score.” Sept. 5, 2012 Order re: Receivership
18 Transition Plan & Expert Evaluations at 9. The Court further provided that “[e]valuations
19 may, at the Receiver’s and experts’ discretion, also be scheduled at institutions that have
20 received overall OIG scores of between 75% and 85% in any round of the OIG inspections.”
21 Id. The Court anticipated the potential need for additional expert staff:
22
23
24
25
26
27 Id. at 10.
28

The court experts and the Receiver, in consultation with the
parties, shall consider whether appointment of additional experts
or hiring of other clinical personnel is necessary or desirable.
Any proposed additional experts or personnel, along with
proposed hourly rates, shall be presented to the Court for
approval, preferably by stipulation. All such individuals shall
follow the methodology adopted by the three original court
experts when conducting their evaluations.

1

To date, the experts have timely completed written evaluations of four institutions.

2 The experts have requested, and the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to, the appointment
3 of several additional clinical personnel to work under direction of the three original court
4 experts. The primary impetus for the request has been the unexpected pace at which
5 institutions have been receiving OIG scores of 85% or higher.1 Defendants have not agreed
6 to the request, and the Receiver has recommended that the Court appoint all of the requested
7 additional personnel over Defendants’ objections.
8

Upon careful consideration, this Court declines to adopt the Receiver’s

9 recommendation. As Defendants have observed, ensuring that all three of the original court

11 Court has confidence that the three experts will continue to produce detailed, comprehensive
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10 experts evaluate each institution will promote uniformity among the evaluations, and the

12 evaluations that will assist the Court and the parties in determining how to move this case
13 forward. Declining to appoint additional experts also has the potential to save Defendants
14 money, if the experts are ever able to recommend to the Court that a “particular overall OIG
15 score or set of sub-scores is sufficient to establish the adequacy of care without a subjective
16 evaluation,” or they “conclude that they need not examine every institution individually to
17 determine that the overall system is adequate.” Id. However, the trade-off in having fewer
18 expert staff and therefore greater consistency is delay; it is not possible for the three experts
19 to conduct thorough investigations of all institutions within the original six-month time
20 frame. In this instance, the Court defers to Defendants’ choice of potential monetary savings
21 over expediency.
22

Accordingly, with good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no

23 additional expert staff will be appointed at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the
24 six-month deadline for the experts to complete their written evaluations is VACATED. The
25
26

1

Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the court experts’ review of R.J. Donovan
Correctional Facility, these relatively high OIG scores do not mean, in all cases, that inmates
27 at those institutions are receiving adequate care. Given this disconnect, it may be helpful for
the OIG to meet with the court experts with the goal of refining the OIG audit instrument to
28 more accurately measure the adequacy of care.
2

1 experts shall proceed as quickly as possible to complete their evaluations of individual
2 prisons. Any disputes over the timing of the court experts’ evaluations will be mediated by
3 the Receiver.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 Dated: 04/18/13
8

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3