Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-01351-175/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

Stipulation and Proposed Order for Modification

of Order of February 8, 2008 -1- CIV S-90-0520 LKK / C01-1351 TEH

A N N M ILLER R A V E L

 County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

ANN MILLER RAVEL, County Counsel (S.B. #62139)

THERESA J. FUENTES, Deputy County Counsel (S.B. #208588)

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL

70 West Hedding, East Wing, 9 Floor th

San Jose, California 95110-1770

Telephone: (408) 299-5900

Facsimile: (408) 292-7240

Lead Attorneys for Intervenors

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY

OF SANTA BARBARA, and COUNTY OF

SAN MATEO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AND THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT COMPOSED OF THREE JUDGES

PURSUANT TO SECTION 2284, TITLE 28 UNITED STATES CODE

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

)

MARCIANO PLATA, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

No. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

No. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

BY ALL PARTIES AND INTERVENORS

FOR MODIFICATION OF THE COURT’S

ORDER OF FEBRUARY 8, 2008 RE

INTERVENOR REPRESENTATION AT

TRIAL

Trial Date: November 18, 2008

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Location: U.S.D.C. Ceremonial Courtroom

//

//

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1756 Filed 11/03/08 Page 1 of 5
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

 The seven Defendant Intervenor parties/groups are: (1) County of Santa Clara;

1

(2) County of San Mateo; (3) County of Santa Barbara; (4) County of Sonoma (including

Sonoma County’s Sheriff, Chief Probation Officer and District Attorney); (5) Law

Enforcement Intervenors (Sheriffs, Police Chiefs and Chief Probation Officers); (6)

Republican Assembly and Senate Intervenors; and (7) District Attorney Intervenors.

Stipulation and Proposed Order for Modification

of Order of February 8, 2008 -2- CIV S-90-0520 LKK / C01-1351 TEH

A N N M ILLER R A V E L

 County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

It is hereby stipulated between all parties and intervenors that:

1. On February 8, 2008, the Court issued an Order Granting in Part Intervenors’ Motion

for Reconsideration and Order Consolidating Proceedings (the “February 8 Order”).

2. Paragraph 5 of the February 8 Order states: “At trial, one attorney may question each

witness on behalf of all intervenors. The same attorney need not question all witnesses. 

Intervenors will, however, present their evidence and question other parties’ witnesses through

not more than a total of three different attorneys throughout the trial.”

3. On March 10, 2008, the County Intervenors and Sonoma County Intervenors

(collectively “County Intervenors”) filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 8 Order

that limited the number of counsel to three attorneys for all Defendant Intervenors. Among

other things, the County Intervenors argued they have a due process right to be represented by

their own counsel in these proceedings. On March 18, 2008, the Court denied the motion

without prejudice to demonstrate the existence of a due process violation, and stated that the

“parties shall present in their joint pretrial conference statement any such arguments for the

need for separate counsel to participate at trial.” The parties now bring this matter before the

Court in an effort to balance the due process concerns with the interests in judicial economy and

efficiency in this proceeding. 

4. Each of the seven Defendant Intervenor parties/groups has its own separate counsel

in this case. To date, each Defendant Intervenor has presented its own evidence, through its

1

own counsel, in the form of deposition testimony, discovery, expert reports, exhibits and

witness declarations. The parties request that each Defendant Intervenor continue to be

represented by its own counsel at trial, subject to the requirement contained in the February 8

Order that “one attorney may question each witness on behalf of all [defendant] intervenors”

and that the “same attorney need not question all witnesses.”

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1756 Filed 11/03/08 Page 2 of 5
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

 Although Defendant Intervenors do not expect the need to do so, they reserve the 2

right to seek relief from the Court if during trial it becomes apparent that the assigned

attorney for a witness is unable or unwilling to represent another intervenors’ interests

with respect to that witness.

Stipulation and Proposed Order for Modification

of Order of February 8, 2008 -3- CIV S-90-0520 LKK / C01-1351 TEH

A N N M ILLER R A V E L

 County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

5. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court modify its February 8 Order to vacate

the requirement contained in Paragraph 5 that: “Intervenors will, however, present their

evidence and question other parties’ witnesses through not more than a total of three different

attorneys throughout the trial.” Elimination of the three attorney maximum will allow each of

the Defendant Intervenors to present its own evidence through its own counsel without

lengthening or delaying the proceedings because each witness will still be questioned by only

one attorney on behalf of all Defendant Intervenors.

2

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that Paragraph 5 of the February 8 Order be modified as

follows: “At trial, one attorney may question each witness on behalf of all defendant

intervenors. The same attorney need not question all witnesses.” 

I hereby attest that I have on file approvals for any signatures indicated by a “conformed”

signature (/S/) within this e-filed document.

IT IS SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: October 30, 2008

Dated: October 30, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

ANN MILLER RAVEL

County Counsel

By: /S/ 

THERESA J. FUENTES

Deputy County Counsel

Lead Attorneys for Intervenors

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ,

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,

and COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

STEVEN M. WOODSIDE

County Counsel

By: /S/ 

ANNE L. KECK

Deputy County Counsel

Attorneys for Intervenor,

COUNTY OF SONOMA, SONOMA

COUNTY SHERIFF SONOMA

COUNTY PROBATION

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1756 Filed 11/03/08 Page 3 of 5
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

Stipulation and Proposed Order for Modification

of Order of February 8, 2008 -4- CIV S-90-0520 LKK / C01-1351 TEH

A N N M ILLER R A V E L

 County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

Dated: October 30, 2008

Dated: October 30, 2008

Dated: October 30, 2008

Dated: October 30, 2008

Dated: October 30, 2008

Dated: October 30, 2008

ROD PACHECO

District Attorney

By: /S/ 

WILLIAM MITCHELL

Assistant District Attorney

Attorneys for District Attorney

Intervenors

AKIN BUMP STRAUSS HAUER

& FELD LLP

By: /S/ 

CHAD STEGEMAN

Attorneys for Assembly and

Senate Republican Intervenors

JONES & MAYER

By: /S/ 

KIMBERLY HALL-BARLOW

Attorneys for Sheriff Intervenors,

Probation Intervenors, and Chief of

Correction Intervenors

CARROLL, BURDICK &

MCDONOUGH LLP

By: /S/ 

NATALIE LEONARD

Attorneys for Intervenor

California Correctional Peace

Officer’s Association

ROSEN, BIEN & GALVAN, LLP

By: /S/ 

AMY WHELAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PRISON LAW OFFICE

By: /S/ 

DONALD SPECTER

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1756 Filed 11/03/08 Page 4 of 5
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

Stipulation and Proposed Order for Modification

of Order of February 8, 2008 -5- CIV S-90-0520 LKK / C01-1351 TEH

A N N M ILLER R A V E L

 County Counsel

County of Santa Clara

S an Jose, California

Dated: October 30, 2008 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.

Attorney General, State of California

By: /S/ 

ROCHELLE C. EAST

KYLE A. LEWIS

Deputy Attorneys General

Attorneys for Defendants

ORDER

Pursuant to the above stated stipulation of the parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Paragraph 5 of the Court’s February 8, 2008 Order

Granting in Part Intervenors’ Motion for Reconsideration and Order Consolidating Proceedings

is hereby modified as follows:

5. At trial, one attorney may question each witness on behalf of all defendant

intervenors. The same attorney need not question all witnesses.

Dated: ____________________ ___________________________________

STEPHEN REINHARDT

United States Circuit Judge

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal

Dated: _____________________ ____________________________________

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

Senior United States District Judge

Eastern District of California

Dated:________________________ ____________________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

Senior United States District Judge

Northern District of California 

/s/ /s/ 11/03/08 11/03/08 11/03/08

Case 3:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1756 Filed 11/03/08 Page 5 of 5