Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-1323/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 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 The court held a status conference in this matter on March 28, 2024 to address issues 

18 related to completion of the data remediation project following the Special Master’s informal 

19 report to the court that the project would not be completed by the March 31, 2023 deadline set 

20 most recently by the court. See generally Feb. 1, 2024 Order, ECF No. 8121. At the status 

21 conference, in response to the court’s questions, defendants estimated an additional two years will 

22 be needed to complete data remediation if the remediation project remains on its current path. 

23 I. STEPS IN THE DATA REMEDIATION PROCESS

24 In May 2022, in accordance with the court’s direction, see Apr. 29, 2022 Minute Order,

25 ECF No. 7541, then-California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary 

26 Kathleen Allison filed a declaration including a template for the six step data remediation process 

27 she and the Special Master agreed to. See Decl. of Allison at 2 and Ex. A, ECF Nos. 7556, 7556-

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 90-cv-0520 KJM DB P 

ORDER AND 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 7
2 

1.11 These steps are as follows: 

2 Step 1: DOCUMENTATION 

3 CDCR Mental Health creates preliminary documentation for the indicator and its 

4 business rules. This documentation includes a list of business requirements that the 

5 indicator intends to measure and then describes how the software (or an audit) will 

6 operate to achieve this. 

7 Step 2: VALIDATION 

8 Stakeholders then validate the indicator’s documentation (in the context of business 

9 requirements and workflows it is intended to measure) to ensure its design will 

10 create transparent and accurate data. When issues are discovered, stakeholders work 

11 by consensus to correct the deficiency or use the agreed dispute resolution process. 

12 Stakeholder validation takes place through written comments provided by the 

13 Special Master’s team and plaintiffs along with detailed discussion during BRMR 

14 meetings. 

15 Step 3: APPROVALS 

16 The agreed-upon documentation approved by all stakeholders including the Special 

17 Master’s data expert then enters CDCR’s current change management process for 

18 approval by CDCR Mental Health. 

19 Step 4: PROGRAMMING 

20 The indicator is programmed according to the validated documentation by CDCR 

21 programmers under the supervision of MH. 

22 Step 5: VERIFICATION 

23 Software tests are created to confirm that the indicator is working as designed on an 

24 ongoing basis. These tests are created by a separate team of CDCR programmers 

25 working with CDCR subject matter experts in order to verify that the CDCR’s data 

26 products (including row-level “case data” and summary statistics) are correctly 

27 generated per their previously validated designs. 

28 Remediation of Individual Indicators 

29 Finally, when indicators and their business rules complete the five-step validation 

30 and verification process, and there are no outstanding stakeholder disputes, the 

31 Special Master’s data expert marks them as remediated and communicates the same 

32 to the date remediation stakeholders.[Footnote omitted.]

1

 In this order citations to page numbers in documents filed in the Court’s Electronic Case 

Filing (ECF) system are to the page number assigned by ECF located in the upper right hand 

corner of the page. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 7
3 

1 Data System Certification 

2 In order for the data remediation process to be completed, the individual remediated 

3 indicators must operate in a system that is transparent and has adequate version 

4 control to enable users to easily track and compare current documentation to prior 

5 versions. This will provide for the durability of the gains made during the 

6 remediation endeavor. The Special Master’s data expert has committed to reviewing 

7 and certifying that such processes are in place so that the significant achievements 

8 of the data remediation process are durable and that the Court can rely on the 

9 accuracy of defendants’ mental health-related data after the remediation process has 

10 completed. 

Special Master’s Report on Data Remediation at 28-30, ECF No. 7863.2 11 

12 II. CURRENT STATUS OF DATA REMEDIATION

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

Although the specific number may vary slightly, the Special Master and the parties

generally agree there are approximately 267 indicators proceeding through the data remediation 

process. The Special Master’s data expert has marked 101 of those as remediated. 

Of the remaining approximately 166 indicators, the parties agree one group of 41 has 

proceeded through all five steps of the data remediation process and are with the Special Master’s 

expert to confirm whether any stakeholder disputes remain and then mark as remediated when 

such outstanding disputes, if any, are resolved. 

The parties also agree a second group of 38 indicators is covered by the court’s 

December 5, 2023 Order, ECF No. 8078. By that order, the court required defendants to include 

a “patient-wise methodology” to report data and summary statistics for an identified subset of 

continuous quality improvement tool (CQIT) indicators. ECF No. 8078 at 3-4.3 At hearing, the 

parties confirmed the court’s understanding that only one of these 38 indicators has passed the 

first step in the data remediation process. 

At hearing the court probed the status of the foregoing two groups, representing a total of 

79 outstanding indicators, and also discussed with the parties obstacles to completion of data 

28 remediation. 

2

 Neither party filed objections to this Report. 

3

 When the court issued the December 5, 2023 order, the record suggested there were 

twenty-five key CQIT indicators affected by the addition of this methodology. See ECF No. 8078 

at 3. The court accepts the representation that number is now thirty-eight. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 7
4 

1 III. NEXT STEPS

2 A. The Forty-One Indicators Verified Through Step Five

3 As noted above, all parties agree 41 indicators have been verified through Step Five of the 

4 data remediation process and are now with the Special Master for final review and, as 

5 appropriate, marking as remediated. The court will require the Special Master to take all steps to 

6 complete the process of marking these indicators as remediated no later than April 25, 2024. If 

7 the Special Master believes it is absolutely necessary to meet this deadline, he may postpone 

8 work on other indicators in the Business Rules and Methodology Review meetings and set such 

9 additional interim deadlines as may be required so that he will meet the deadline set in this order. 

10 The court will accept an oral report from the Special Master at the April 26, 2024 status 

11 conference that these 41 indicators are marked as remediated. 

12 B. The Thirty-Eight Patient-Wise Indicators

13 The parties are in general agreement that only one of the 38 patient-wise indicators has 

14 completed the first step of the five-step process outlined above and still needs to proceed through 

15 the remaining four steps, and that the other 37 patient-wise indicators still need to move through 

16 all of that five-step process. The court ordered development of these indicators in accordance 

17 with the Special Master’s proposal, see generally ECF No. 8078; there should be minimal, if any, 

18 disputes as these indicators now proceed through the data remediation steps. Nonetheless, at 

19 hearing, defendants expressed uncertainty about what precisely is required to accurately 

20 document, validate, program and verify these 38 indicators, and suggested there is a “learning 

21 curve” for their technical staff in this process. 

22 In its original order following hearing on the whistleblower reports that led to the data 

23 remediation process, the court observed that Dr. David Leidner, who at the time worked at CDCR 

24 Headquarters, has a significant skill set that “could continue to play an important role both in” 

25 data remediation “and at CDCR Headquarters more generally.” Dec. 17, 2019 Order at 19, ECF 

26 No. 6427; see also ECF No. 7541 (court anticipates clarification of issues related to data 

27 remediation “will be achieved in discussions involving Special Master Lopes, Secretary Allison, 

28 Undersecretary Toche, Dr. Daniel Potter, and Dr. David Leidner.”) The court believes significant 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 7
5 

1 efficiencies in moving these 38 indicators through the data remediation process may be achieved 

2 if the court (1) delegates to the Special Master responsibility to ensure these 38 indicators move 

3 through all five steps of the data remediation process so he can mark them as remediated no later 

4 than May 31, 2024 and (2) directs defendants to make Dr. Leidner available to work directly with 

5 the Special Master as needed to meet this deadline, together with such CDCR mental health staff 

as Dr. Leidner may identify to complete necessary tasks.4 6 Good cause appearing, the parties will 

7 be granted seven days from the date of this order to show cause in writing, if any they have, why 

8 the court should not make these orders. 

9 C. Additional Issues Affecting Timely Remediation

10 At hearing, the court discussed with the parties two substantive areas affecting data 

11 remediation: (1) proposed new regulations for Restricted Housing Units (RHUs) and the parties’ 

12 dispute over the effect, if any, of the court’s February 7, 2022 Order, ECF No. 7456, on 

13 defendants’ obligation to inform the court to the extent such regulations may replace certain 

14 chapters of the Program Guide, a primary remedial plan in this action; and (2) the parties’ dispute 

15 over the scope of the court’s August 23, 2023 Order, ECF No. 7924, regarding minimum 

16 treatment standards in the CDCR Psychiatric Inpatient Programs (PIPs). 

17 Plaintiffs agreed to bring a motion for clarification of the August 23, 2023 order within 

18 twenty-one days. That will be the order of the court. Defendants will be directed to file 

19 opposition, if any they have, within fourteen days thereafter, and plaintiffs’ reply will be due 

20 seven days thereafter. The motion will be submitted without hearing unless the court orders 

21 otherwise. 

22 ///// 

4

 The court is aware of defendants’ preferred approach, expressed by Dr. Cartwright at 

hearing, under which all CDCR staff assigned to this project learn the necessary technical steps as 

the work progresses. While the court applauds Dr. Cartwright’s inclination to ensure the entire 

quality assurance team has the same knowledge base and skillset, that inclination appears to be 

contributing to the slowdown in data remediation. The Special Master is responsible for guiding 

the data remediation process, not for training CDCR’s quality assurance team. This is 

particularly true in light of former CDCR Secretary Allison’s representation “that the staff 

assigned to work on data remediation including its technical writers are sufficient in number and 

qualifications to complete data remediation before December 2023.” ECF No. 7556 at ⁋ 6. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 5 of 7
6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

At hearing, the parties signaled general agreement with the contours of the proposed RHU 

regulations, which defendants represent will go into effect in April 2024. As noted, the dispute 

centers on the impact of the court’s February 7, 2022 order on defendants’ obligation to inform 

the court to the extent they intend such regulations to replace certain chapters of the Program 

Guide, a primary remedial plan in this action. In order to avoid any potential conflict between 

defendants’ obligations to this court and state regulations, as well as to avoid duplicative or 

redundant efforts in the data remediation process, the court will resolve this dispute 

expeditiously.5 Good cause appearing, the parties will take all steps necessary to file a joint 

motion for clarification of the February 7, 2022 order setting forth their respective positions, 

accompanied by a stipulation of counsel setting forth their agreements with respect to the 

substantive provisions of the RHU regulations. The parties shall include in the stipulation a joint 

representation of what they understand to be the position of the Special Master with respect to 

these regulations. These documents shall be filed on or before April 15, 2024 to enable the court 

14 to resolve the motion before the end of April 2024. 

15 IV. CONCLUSION

16 Defendants’ projection at the status conference that it will require an additional two years

17 to complete data remediation, on its current path, is unacceptable. The court finds the deadlines 

18 and processes outlined in this order to complete remediation of 79 outstanding indicators will, if 

19 implemented promptly, aid in efficient earlier completion of a significant portion of the data 

20 remediation remaining. The court will consider the status of remediation of these indicators in 

21 April and May respectively to assess whether it needs to issue further orders to ensure timely 

22 completion of remediation. If sufficient progress is not made soon, as it signaled at the status 

23 conference, the court may have no choice but to retain an outside contractor to complete the 

24 necessary remedial work. 

25 ///// 

5

 As of November 1, 2023, CDCR had implemented the new RSUs. See Restricted 

Housing - Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) (ca.gov) (last checked 3/30/24). At hearing, 

defendants suggested the final RHU regulations are scheduled to go into effect in April 2024 but 

did not provide an exact date. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 6 of 7
7 

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

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 

1. The Special Master shall take all steps necessary so that, not later than

April 25, 2024, 41 indicators described in this order are marked as

remediated. The court will accept an oral report from the Special Master at

the April 26, 2024 status conference that these 41 indicators are marked as

remediated.

2. Within seven days from the date of this order the parties shall show cause

in writing if any they have why the court should not (1) delegate to the

Special Master responsibility to ensure the 38 patient-wise indicators move

through all five steps of the data remediation process so he can mark them

as remediated by May 31, 2024 and (2) direct defendants to make 

Dr. Leidner available to work directly with the Special Master as needed to

meet this deadline and to make equally available such CDCR mental health

staff as Dr. Leidner may identify to complete necessary tasks.

3. On or before April 18, 2024, plaintiffs shall file a motion for clarification of 

the court’s August 23, 2023 order. Defendants’ response shall be filed on 

or before May 2, 2024, and plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed on or before May 

9, 2024. The motion will be submitted without oral argument absent

further order of the court.

4. On or before April 15, 2024, the parties shall file a joint motion for

clarification of the court’s February 7, 2022 order setting out their

respective positions together with a stipulation that sets forth their

agreements with respect to the substantive provisions of the pending

Restricted Housing Unit regulations and a joint representation of their

understanding of the position of the Special Master with respect to the

substance of these regulations. Absent further order of the court, the

motion will be submitted without oral argument upon the filing of the

28 motion and stipulation required by this order.

29 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

30 DATED: April 1, 2024. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 8181 Filed 04/02/24 Page 7 of 7