Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-642/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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RALPH COLEMAN, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

Defendants. 

No. CIV. S-90-520 LKK/DAD (PC) 

ORDER 

Pursuant to court order, this matter was set for evidentiary 

hearing on September 26, 2013 on, inter alia, plaintiffs’ motion 

for enforcement of court orders and affirmative relief related to 

use of force and disciplinary measures. By subsequent order, the 

start of the hearing was continued to October 1, 2013. 

 On September 12, 2013, defendants filed a motion in limine 

to exclude or limit presentation by plaintiffs of use of force 

videos at said hearing.1

 By order filed September 26, 2013, the 

court denied defendants’ motion in limine insofar as it sought 

 

1

 Use of force videos are made by defendants pursuant to state 

regulation and were made available to plaintiffs and their expert 

during prison tours. See Plfs.’ Opp. to Defs.’ MIL No. 6, filed 

September 19, 2013 (ECF No. 4820) at 2. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4860 Filed 10/07/13 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 

2 

exclusion of the videos or their review in camera. Order filed 

September 26, 2013 (ECF No. 4833) at 2. The order provides that 

any video offered and accepted into evidence at the evidentiary 

hearing will be shown in open court subject to a protective 

order. The protective order provides, in relevant part, at 

paragraph 2b. that “[a]ny member of the public or press who views 

the videos is prohibited from publicly disclosing the names, 

identification numbers, or other personally-identifying 

information of any inmate or peace officer or other employee of 

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(CDCR) who may appear in any such video.” Id. at 2-3. The 

September 26, 2013 order was based on the court’s determinations 

that (1) the issues raised by plaintiffs’ motion are of great 

public interest and significance; and (2) the identity of 

individuals depicted in the videos are irrelevant to the 

proceedings and of no public interest and those individuals have 

privacy interests otherwise protected by law. The September 26, 

2013 order was entered to balance those interests. 

 On September 30, 2013, Los Angeles Times Communications LLC 

(Los Angeles Times) filed a motion to intervene in this action in 

order to seek modification of that part of the protective order 

quoted supra, which the Los Angeles Times challenges as a prior 

restraint in violation of the First Amendment. At the start of 

the evidentiary hearing on October 1, 2013, the court granted the 

motion to intervene in open court and heard argument on the 

motion to modify the protective order, after which the court made 

the oral ruling now reduced to writing herein. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4860 Filed 10/07/13 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 

3 

 There is no dispute that the videos depict members of the 

plaintiff class, all of whom are seriously mentally ill. The 

identities of class members have been protected by a protective 

order since early in this action. See Order filed September 12, 

1991 (Doc. No. 90).2 Nor do the parties contend that the CDCR 

employees depicted in these video recordings acted ultra vires; 

rather, plaintiffs assert that these employees are carrying out 

their duties in accordance with the policies and procedures 

currently in effect. As such, the identities of the CDCR 

employees and the class members depicted are completely 

irrelevant to the court’s consideration of this issues at bar. 

 After consideration of the arguments by counsel for the Los 

Angeles Times and by counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, the 

court entertained and granted from the bench a joint motion by 

plaintiffs and defendants to strike any personally-identifying 

information inadvertently shown during the playing of the videos 

from the record of these proceedings. Such information is 

irrelevant and will not be admitted into evidence in these 

proceedings for any purpose. 

In accordance with the above, the court hereby orders as 

follows: 

[1] Paragraph 2.b of the court’s September 26, 2013 Order, 

which provides, “Any member of the public or press who views 

the videos is prohibited from publicly disclosing the names, 

identification numbers, or other personally-identifying 

 

2

 The protective order has been modified several times. See, 

e.g., Modified Protective Order filed January 12, 2007 (ECF No. 

2109). 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4860 Filed 10/07/13 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 

4 

information of any inmate or any peace officer or other 

employee of the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (CDCR) who may appear in any such video,” is 

VACATED. 

[2] Any names, identification numbers, and other personallyidentifying information of any inmate and any peace officer 

or other employee of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation who may appear in any video 

shown during the evidentiary hearing is irrelevant to these 

proceedings and will not be admitted into evidence for any 

purpose. Any such personal information inadvertently shown 

during the playing of these tapes is STRICKEN from the 

record of these proceedings, and for that reason may not be 

disclosed by members of the press or the public in 

attendance upon penalty of contempt of court. This order has 

no application to information obtained by the press or 

public independently of these proceedings. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 7, 2013. 

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4860 Filed 10/07/13 Page 4 of 4