Opinion
No. CIV S-94-0671 LKK GGH
10-13-2011
JERRY VALDIVIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
___Plaintiffs' motions to compel inspections of hearing locations for parole revocation proceedings with respect to Placer and Sacramento County jails came on for hearing on October 13, 2011. Kenneth Walczak appeared on behalf of plaintiffs. Valerie Flood represented third party Placer County. Renju Jacob appeared for defendants. Specifically at issue was whether the non-parties counties should be compelled to permit plaintiffs' experts to conduct informal interviews with staff at the county jails in the Counties of Placer and Sacramento while plaintiffs engage in on-site operations inspections and video recordings of the hearing locations in these counties for parole revocation hearings of class members. At the hearing, counsel for Placer County stated that a CDCR state representative would be present for the inspections.
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.
For the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, the court makes the following ORDERS:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel non-party Sacramento County to permit informal interviews with Sacramento County jail staff at any site in the county where parole revocation hearing location inspections are to be conducted by plaintiffs, filed on October 5, 2011 (docket # 1698), is denied; and
2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel non-party Placer County to permit informal interviews with Placer County jail staff at any site in the county where plaintiffs' inspections of parole hearing locations are to be conducted, filed on October 7, 2011 (docket # 1700), is denied.
3. Plaintiffs' experts are free to engage in informal discussions with the CDCR state representative present during the inspections.
Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH:009
vald0671..ord