The court must consider these interests and “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted).

However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

These exhibits contain the medical records of incarcerated individuals, and letters about the San Diego County Jail from plaintiffs’ counsel in the Armstrong v. Newsom litigation against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).

Plaintiffs do not seek to seal information regarding conditions, communications, and custody and medical staff practices that are at issue in the underlying Motions.

(Id.) On review, the Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of public access, their request is narrowly tailored, and the names and identification numbers of non-party inmates have no bearing on this action.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3 Eastern Division

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, February 2, 2023: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: Motion to withdraw Diane O'Connell as attorney for defendant Kelly is granted [406].

It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3 Eastern Division

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, January 31, 2023: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: As to defendant Kelly: Defendant's sentencing submission shall be filed by 2/9/23.

Government's sentencing submission shall be filed by 2/16/23.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

The seven named Plaintiffs, who suffer from mobility and hearing disabilities, report being unable to access facilities, services, and medical care and appear for court proceedings due to a lack of accommodations.

Defendants will also provide Plaintiffs’ counsel a current roster of incarcerated persons with mobility and hearing disabilities listed along with their location within the jail (but with their identifying information redacted) before the inspection.

All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, and grievance responses relating to the availability, provision, maintenance, and repair of assistive devices (including but not limited to wheelchairs, walkers, canes, crutches, prosthetics, and hearing aids) for INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rules 26 and 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Darryl Dunsmore, Andree Andrade, Ernest Archuleta, James Clark, Anthony Edwards, Lisa Landers, Reanna Levy, Josue Lopez, Christopher Nelson, Christopher Norwood, Jesse Olivares, Gustavo Sepulveda, Michael Taylor, and Laura Zoerner (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, will take the deposition of Defendant San Diego County Sheriff’s Department (“Sheriff’s Department”) regarding the topic for examination stated below.

All CURRENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES and practices regarding the accessibility of facilities, housing, programs, services, activities, EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION, REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS, and assistive devices for INCARCERATED PERSONS with DISABILITIES.

When faced with a similar argument, the Coe court pointed to the “well-established principle that statements of coconspirators before a defendant joins the conspiracy are nonetheless admissible against him.” 718 F.2d at 839; see also ...

First, the TAC seeks to bring claims “on behalf of all adults who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities (“Incarcerated People Class”).” (Id. at 198–99.)

On June 30, 2022, Mr. Rodriguez, proceeding pro se, filed the instant ex parte motion to intervene, asserting that his interests may not presently be fairly represented.1 (Doc. No.

As the contents of these filings are subject to reasonable dispute, are not generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction, and cannot be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be questioned, the Court DENIES Mr. Rodriguez’s requests for judicial notice.

Alternatively, the “court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Id., subsection (b)(1)(B) (emphasis added).

It is true that he “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” But the Court must also consider several other factors to evaluate whether to grant permissive intervention.

He said that he had not yet been arrested and, at the time, believed: “I did nothing wrong, and I ... got bored.” More recently, his attorney explained, Stephens had taken “significant steps” to “make sure he does not re-offend,” including participating in a cognitive skills class, behavioral treatment, and reflection.

After adopting the PSR’s guideline calculations without objection, reviewing the supplemental reports and submissions, and hearing the parties’ arguments, the district court sentenced Stephens to 151 months in prison.

Moreover, “[b]oth prongs are subject to presumptions favoring the government, as courts presume both that defense counsel’s performance fell ‘within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,’ and that the defendant has not suffered prejudice.” Id. (citation omitted).

Dr. Travis then drafted a comprehensive 26-page report in which he concluded, in part, that Defendant had a low risk of sexually offending in the future and that his treatment needs did not require extended incarceration.

Ultimately, the Court’s sentence was based on a review of all the relevant factors, including Defendant’s own testimony, and did not focus exclusively on Defendant’s continued collection of pornographic images after the initial search warrant.

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.6.3 Eastern Division

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, November 28, 2022: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber: By agreement, Post trial motions by defendant Kelly [387, 388] are entered and briefed as follows: Government's response by 12/14/22, defendant's reply by 12/28/22.

It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District.

If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

As used in this Order, “copies” includes electronic images, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions that contain the Confidential Information.

Defendants, defendants’ counsel, and authorized persons shall not disclose any notes or records of any kind that they make in relation to the contents of the materials or Confidential Information, other than to authorized persons, and all such notes or records are to be treated in the same manner as the original materials or Confidential Information.

Upon conclusion of all stages of this case, all of the Confidential Information and all copies made thereof shall be disposed of in one of three ways, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

The restrictions set forth in this Order do not apply to documents that are or become part of the public court record, including documents that have been received in evidence at other trials, nor do the restrictions in this Order limit the government or defense counsel in the use of discovery materials in judicial proceedings in this case, except that any document filed by any party which attaches or otherwise discloses Confidential Information shall be filed under seal to the extent necessary to protect such information, absent prior permission from this Court.

Nothing contained in this Order shall preclude any party or nonparty from applying to this Court for further relief or for modification of any provision hereof.

SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and Date: May 15, 2024 LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of Time: 9:00 a.m. themselves and all others similarly situated, Crtrm.

: Via Remote Technology Plaintiffs, Magistrate: Hon.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 15, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Plaintiffs will and hereby do move the Court for an order granting their Motion for Leave to Take Additional Depositions and to Compel Depositions of Sheriff Kelly Martinez, Dr. Peter Freedland, and NaphCare Onsite Leadership.

This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and the declarations of Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Van Swearingen and Priyah Kaul, filed herewith, oral argument on the motion, and the entire record in this case.

DATED: April 24, 2024 Respectfully submitted, ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of “themselves and the approximately 4,000 incarcerated people who are similarly situated on any given day” to “remedy the dangerous, discriminatory, and unconstitutional conditions in the Jail.” (SAC, Doc. No. 81, ¶ 6.)

“[T]he district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying [a Rule 59(e)] motion.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam)).

However, because “the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, [it should] be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

As such, a Rule 59(e) motion generally should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances, 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999), such as an intervening change in controlling law, the availability of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice, Allstate Ins. Co., 634 F.3d at 1111; 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL

The SAC sufficiently alleges that Plaintiffs Dunsmore, Archuleta, Nelson, and Norwood are post-conviction detainees, and thus have a constitutional right to protection under the Eighth Amendment.