Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1259/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19601794.2 [4288892.9] 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES 

DONALD SPECTER – 083925 

STEVEN FAMA – 099641 

MARGOT MENDELSON – 268583 

PRISON LAW OFFICE 

1917 Fifth Street 

Berkeley, California 94710-1916 

Telephone: (510) 280-2621 

CLAUDIA CENTER – 158255 

DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION 

AND DEFENSE FUND, INC. 

Ed Roberts Campus 

3075 Adeline Street, Suite 210 

Berkeley, California 94703-2578 

Telephone: (510) 644-2555 

MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891 

ERNEST GALVAN – 196065 

LISA ELLS – 243657 

JENNY S. YELIN – 273601 

THOMAS NOLAN – 169692 

MICHAEL S. NUNEZ – 280535 

AMY XU – 330707 

CARA E. TRAPANI – 313411 

MARC J. SHINN-KRANTZ – 312968 

ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631 

GINGER JACKSON-GLEICH – 324454 

ADRIENNE PON HARROLD – 326640 

ARIELLE W. TOLMAN – 342635 

ROSEN BIEN 

GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 

101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94105-1738 

Telephone: (415) 433-6830 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 2:90-CV-00520-KJM-DB 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA 

DISPUTES

Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7844 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19601794.2 [4288892.9] 1 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES 

On April 10, 2023, Defendants filed objections to the Special Master’s March 9, 

2023 Report and Recommendations Regarding Third-Level Data Remediation Disputes 

(ECF No. 7755 or “Third-Level Data Report”). See ECF No. 7805. Plaintiffs requested, 

and the Court granted, leave to respond to Defendants’ objections by April 24, 2023. See

Apr. 17, 2023 Minute Order, ECF No. 7810. The Court required Plaintiffs to update the 

Court on whether any of the compromises Defendants proposed in their objections 

“suggest a resolution of outstanding disputes acceptable to Plaintiffs and that meets with 

the approval of the Special Master.” Id. In light of the Court’s Order, the parties agreed to 

meet with the Special Master team to discuss whether any of the identified disputes could 

be narrowed based on Defendants’ proposed compromises. See ECF No. 7820 at 2. The 

parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, a seven-day extension for Plaintiffs to respond to 

Defendants’ objections until May 1, 2023. See Apr. 24, 2023 Minute Order, ECF 

No. 7821. Plaintiffs filed their response on May 1, 2023. See ECF No. 7825. 

The parties met and conferred on April 27, 2023 and reached agreement on two of 

the four third-level data disputes before the Court, specifically the disputes pertaining to 

the “IDTT Staffing” indicator (patient attendance and psychiatric nurse practitioner (PNP) 

attendance). This stipulation memorializes the parties’ agreements, which the Special 

Master has approved. The parties request that the Court approve these compromises. 

I. IDTT STAFFING – PATIENT ATTENDANCE 

The parties agree that rather than modifying the existing IDTT Staffing indicator to 

measure patient attendance, Defendants will create a new indicator measuring whether 

patients are attending their IDTTs. The details and methodology of that indicator will be 

negotiated between the stakeholders during the data remediation process. Defendants 

commit to start creating the documentation for this new indicator as soon as the 

documentation stage is complete for the other provisionally approved indicators, and will 

work with Plaintiffs and the Special Master to complete the IDTT Patient Attendance 

indicator through the normal data remediation processes. The Special Master approved 

this compromise. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7844 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19601794.2 [4288892.9] 2 

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES 

II. IDTT STAFFING – PSYCHIATRY NURSE PRACTITIONER (PNP) 

PARTICIPATION 

The parties agree that Defendants will revise the existing IDTT Staffing indicator 

methodology to count an IDTT as noncompliant if a PNP attends an IDTT for any patient 

above the CCCMS level of care.1

 The Special Master approved this compromise. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

DATED: May 16, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP 

By: /s/ Cara E. Trapani

 Cara E. Trapani 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

DATED: May 16, 2023 ROB BONTA 

Attorney General of California 

DAMON MCCLAIN 

Supervising Deputy Attorney General 

 By: /s/ Namrata Kotwani

NAMRATA KOTWANI 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorneys for Defendants 

1

 Although not central to resolving the dispute, Defendants are exploring the creation of a 

separate unusual events flag to measure when a PNP attends IDTTs at the EOP or higher 

levels of care. This indicator would not be developed until after the end of data 

remediation. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7844 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19601794.2 [4288892.9] 3

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD-LEVEL DATA DISPUTES 

DATED: May 16, 2023 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 

By: /s/ Samantha Wolff 

 PAUL B. MELLO 

SAMANTHA D. WOLFF 

Attorneys for Defendants 

ORDER 

Having reviewed the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Court 

approves the parties’ agreements regarding the IDTT Staffing – Patient Attendance 

dispute, and the IDTT Staffing – Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (PNP) Participation 

dispute, with the understanding that the term “noncompliant” refers to noncompliance with 

the relevant Program Guide requirement. Accordingly, the Court deems these two disputes 

resolved. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 17, 2023. 

 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 7844 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 4