Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01351/USCOURTS-cand-4_01-cv-01351-61/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

1

The magistrate judge’s December 6, 2007 ruling was an oral ruling. The magistrate

judge issued a written order on December 7, 2007.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

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.

NO. CIV S-90-0520 LKK JFM P

THREE-JUDGE COURT

MARCIANO PLATA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C01-1351 TEH

THREE-JUDGE COURT

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Defendants have filed a request for clarification of this court’s December 14, 2007

order granting in part their request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s December 6,

2007 order.1

 In their request, defendants state generally that they are “unclear regarding what

portions, if any” of the magistrate judge’s order “remain in effect.” Defs.’ Request for

Clarification of the Three-Judge Panel’s December 14, 2007 Order, filed December 21, 2007,

at 2. Defendants do not specifically address any particular provisions of the magistrate

judge’s order.

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1042 Filed 01/07/08 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

27

28

2

The magistrate judge found that defendants had failed to meet their burden of

establishing various privileges asserted in these proceedings. See Dec. 7, 2007 Order at 10,

14, 15, 16, 17. With respect to the deliberative process privilege, the magistrate judge also

found that “the manner in which these proceedings are being defended involves presentation

of material which will constitute a waiver of the deliberative process privilege.” Id. at 13-14. 

He therefore ordered defendants to produce all documents for which a claim of privilege had

been made in the November 9, 2007, November 16, 2007, and November 23, 2007 privilege

logs. Id. at 2. Certain documents were ordered produced subject to protective orders set

forth in the December 7, 2007 written order. Id. at 17-18. 

In the December 14, 2007 order, the court granted defendants’ request to revise their

privilege logs and referred the matter back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings in

connection therewith. Pursuant to that order, resolution of any and all issues related to

defendants’ assertions of privilege is before the magistrate judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/07/08 /s/ 

STEPHEN REINHARDT

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Dated: 01/07/08 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: 01/07/08 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 4:01-cv-01351-JST Document 1042 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2