Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-977/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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 

ORDER 

Defendants have filed two motions regarding payment of the court-appointed 

neutral expert. The first motion, filed April 4, 2019, is a motion under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 67 for leave to deposit payments for the neutral expert in the court’s registry or, in the 

alternative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to modify the court’s December 14, 2018 

and January 8, 2019 orders appointing the neutral expert, ECF Nos. 6033, 6064 (hereafter 

“appointment orders”). ECF No. 6121. The second motion, filed May 24, 2019, is for disclosure 

of the neutral expert’s billing records, which have been filed under seal, for stay of any further 

direct payment to the neutral pending disclosure of the records, and for deposit of funds into the 

court registry instead of direct payment pending resolution of the motion. ECF No. 6160. 

Plaintiffs have filed oppositions to both motions, ECF Nos. 6138, 6176, and defendants have filed 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6215 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 3
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 

2 

replies, ECF Nos. 6149-1, 6189-1.1 The neutral expert has also filed a response to the motion for 

disclosure of his firm’s itemized billing records. ECF No. 6173. 

This court’s orders appointing the neutral expert referred the matter of payment to 

the assigned magistrate judge. See ECF Nos. 6033 at 4-5, 6064 at 5-6. With the exception of the 

order for payment of services rendered in December 2018, which this court issued, ECF No. 

6083, the magistrate judge has issued orders for payment of the neutral expert’s services through 

April 2019, when his work was complete. See ECF Nos. 6178 (Order for payment of April 2019 

services), 6155 (Order for payment of March 2019 services), 6115 (Order for payment of 

February 2019 services), 6107 (Order for payment of January 2019 services), 6146 (minute order 

reflecting Neutral Expert Report received 4/22/2019). 

Both of defendants’ motions seek relief from future court-ordered payments 

directly to the neutral expert. Defendants’ request for stay pending ruling on the first motion was 

denied by this court on April 9, 2019. ECF No. 6122. As discussed above, this court or the 

assigned magistrate judge has ordered payment for all services rendered by the neutral expert. 

Through its courtroom deputy, the court has received confirmation from the neutral expert that he 

has received all court-ordered payments. Accordingly, defendants’ motions are moot to the 

extent they seek to avoid direct payment to the neutral expert. “‘The basic question in 

determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be 

granted.’” Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 1988)). Because 

defendants have made all required payments to the neutral expert, there are no future payments to 

be stayed and no funds to be deposited into the court registry pending payment. 

Defendants’ request for disclosure of the neutral expert’s itemized billing records, 

which is attendant to their other requests, will be denied. The records are being maintained under 

seal and are fully available to the Court of Appeals should that court request them. Given the 

 1

 In both instances, defendants filed requests for leave to file reply briefs; the court 

granted both requests. ECF Nos. 6157, 6190. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6215 Filed 07/11/19 Page 2 of 3
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 

3 

ongoing proceedings in this court concerning the contents of the neutral expert’s report, including 

but not limited to the evidentiary hearing set for this September, the court is persuaded that the 

itemized billing records should remain under seal to protect the integrity of the investigation and 

the privacy of witnesses involved in the investigation at least until such time as all court 

proceedings related to that report have concluded. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ April 4, 2019 motion, ECF No. 6121, is denied; and 

2. Defendants’ May 24, 2019 motion, ECF No. 6160, is denied. 

DATED: July 10, 2019. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 6215 Filed 07/11/19 Page 3 of 3