Opinion ID: 755757
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Original Decree.

Text: 10
11 Plaintiffs repeatedly requested the opportunity to engage in discovery and an evidentiary hearing. They sought to discern whether DOC intended to provide meaningful treatment under the Plan and whether its treatment plan was consistent with the least restrictive conditions requirement of the Original Decree. Plaintiffs proposed accomplishing this by exploring DOC's past behavior, present behavior, and expressions of future intent. Plaintiffs' proposal contemplates interviews with all residents, examination of new procedures, expert testimony interpreting the Plan, investigation of current practices, inquiry into internal memos relating to the Plan and the persons instrumental in formulating it, and depositions of DOC officials and Joint Resource Institute (JRI) personnel responsible for treatment. As much as six months of time would be needed. 12 The basic response of the court in denying discovery requests was: 13 It may be that the plan won't work, but the Court of Appeals ... [told me not to] prejudge the plan, but they told me ... I should have a hearing, inquire into the DOC plan, giving significant weight to the local government. 14