Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520/USCOURTS-caed-2_90-cv-00520-570/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK JFM P

vs.

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

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On March 6, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Statement Seeking Clarification of the

court’s order of March 5, 2013. (Doc. No. 4370 - Joint Statement.) Plaintiffs seek clarification

of that part of this court’s March 5, 2013 order (Doc. No. 4367) which required defendants to

produce use of force videos (UOF videos) to plaintiff’s expert “in the same manner and to the

same extent those . . . materials were provided to defendant’s expert . . . .” (Doc. No. 4367 at 6.) 

Plaintiffs seek production of copies of the videos in question to their expert in Washington State,

where he lives and is currently working on his expert report. (Joint Statement at 1.) Defendants

oppose that request and have presented evidence that their expert was not provided copies of

UOF videos and did not remove those that he reviewed from CDCR premises. (Joint Statement

at 2) (citing Ex. 1 to Decl. of William Downer, filed March 6, 2013 (Doc. 4370-2)). Defendants

/////

1

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4371 Filed 03/07/13 Page 1 of 2
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

 also represent that they have agreed to make the UOF videos available for inspection by

plaintiffs’ expert at a “mutually agreed upon CDCR facility.” (Joint Statement at 2.)

After review of the parties’ Joint Statement, and good cause appearing, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for an order directing defendants to produce copies

of UOF videos to plaintiffs’ expert for his review in Washington State is denied. Defendants

shall forthwith make all responsive UOF videos available to plaintiffs’ expert at a date, time, and

CDCR location selected by plaintiffs and their expert, and to make those UOF videos available to

plaintiff’s expert at the selected location for as long as plaintiffs’ expert deems necessary to

complete his review thereof.

DATED: March 7, 2013.

12

termination.disc5

 

2

Case 2:90-cv-00520-KJM-SCR Document 4371 Filed 03/07/13 Page 2 of 2