Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 113

ORDER re 111 Letter Brief, filed by Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Greg Lewis, William Barlow, Robert Marquez, John Harrison, D. Smith, R. Rice, Mathew Cate, Francisco Jacquez, S. Tucker, J. McKinney, Joe McGrath, G. H. Wise, Richard Kirkland , Robert Horel, Hollis Gillingham, Jeanne Woodford, B. Thornton, Susan Fisher, D. W. Bradbury, Robert Doyle, Robert Harmon, A. Hernandez, R. L. Johnson, 112 Letter filed by Danny Troxell, Todd Ashker. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas on April 13, 2012. (njvlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TODD ASHKER

9

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ VISITATION REQUESTS

v.
(Doc. No. 112)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff(s),

No. C-09-05796 CW (NJV)

EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

12

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

13
14

Plaintiffs Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell (“Plaintiffs”) moved to compel the production of

15

documents and further responses to interrogatories from defendants Edmund G. Brown et al.

16

(“Defendants”). See Doc. No. 81. At an April 9, 2012 status conference addressing the status of the

17

motion to compel, Plaintiffs through their attorneys requested a number of exceptions be made to the

18

custodial practices at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) to allow them to prosecute their case more

19

efficiently. Although these requests could be perceived as premature, the Court based on its own

20

experience at PBSP addresses the requests at this juncture to facilitate efficient resolution of the

21

underlying claims in this action. Because Plaintiffs have stipulated to delay a ruling on their motion

22

to compel until the pleadings are settled, the Court only addresses the requests set out in Docket No.

23

112, after considering Defendants’ position as set out in Docket No. 111. Seeking to balance the

24

needs of the parties, including the safety and security concerns of PBSP officials, the Court orders as

25

follows:

26
27
28

1. Each named Plaintiff shall be allowed one phone call of no more than 60 minutes with his
attorneys every two weeks.
2. Plaintiffs have not provided sufficient information to allow the Court to determine

1

whether contact visits between Plaintiffs and their medical experts are warranted. Within one week,

2

Plaintiffs shall provide the following information: the names and qualifications of each expert; the

3

topic(s) each expert is expected to address; the number of times Plaintiffs seek to have contact visits

4

with each expert and the duration of such visits; and the type of examination each expert expects to

5

perform (psychological or medical). The Court understands that the first of these visits is scheduled

6

for April 17, 2012, but notes that Plaintiffs have not formally moved for relief, and merely raised the

7

issue for the first time during an April 9, 2012 status conference.

8

3. PBSP shall allow attorney visits for a minimum of 12 hours a week (Cal. Code Reg. Tit.

both Tuesdays and Wednesdays. If this amount of time proves insufficient, either because of the

11
For the Northern District of California

15 § 3172.2(a)), and may accomplish this by extending attorney visiting hours by 30 minutes on

10

United States District Court

9

scope of meetings required by the case or because of procedural difficulties in securing Plaintiffs’

12

timely attendance at visiting hours, Plaintiffs may move the Court for additional relief.

13
14

4. Plaintiffs shall be allowed to use any unoccupied visiting booth to meet with their
counsel.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: April 13, 2012
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2