Ashker v. Newsom

Background

The parties entered into a settlement agreement in August 2015. Under paragraph 41, plaintiffs could seek extensions of the agreement and the court’s jurisdiction for periods of no more than twelve months by showing that ongoing, systemic constitutional violations continued. Paragraph 43 provided that an extension would end automatically unless plaintiffs made the required showing for another extension. Paragraph 44 continued defendants’ duties to produce documents and data during an extension.

On February 2, 2022, the court adopted part of, and rejected part of, a magistrate judge’s recommendations concerning plaintiffs’ second request to extend the settlement agreement. The court found that plaintiffs met their burden for the alleged due process violations they relied on, except for alleged violations involving hearing officers’ reliability determinations about confidential information used in disciplinary proceedings and the untimely disclosure of confidential information that could be used in parole decisions. The court later clarified that the second twelve-month extension would begin when defendants completed specified document and data production. Defendants appealed the February 2 order.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants argued that their appeal removed the district court’s authority over matters related to the February 2 order. Alternatively, they asked the court to pause the proceedings while the appeal was pending. Plaintiffs opposed the motion.

Jurisdiction During the Appeal

The court held that the February 2 order was not a final decision because it extended the settlement agreement and the court’s jurisdiction rather than ending the case. The appeal was therefore interlocutory, meaning it was an appeal before final judgment.

The court also held that the appeal did not prevent it from enforcing or implementing the February 2 order and settlement provisions triggered by that order. The court could continue actions consistent with its February 2 decision, so long as it did not change or expand the issue under review: whether plaintiffs had shown that a second settlement extension was justified. Continuing defendants’ document and data production duties would not alter that issue. The court reached the same conclusion even assuming the appeal could proceed under the collateral-order doctrine, which can allow immediate appeals of certain non-final orders.

Reasons for Denying a Stay

A stay pending appeal requires consideration of the moving party’s likelihood of success, possible irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other parties, and the public interest. The court found that defendants had not shown a meaningful likelihood of success on appeal. Their stay motion repeated arguments that the court had already considered and rejected when issuing the February 2 order.

The court also found that defendants had not shown irreparable harm. A protective order governed the production of sensitive documents and information. The court rejected defendants’ arguments that production, litigation expenses, or possible future enforcement remedies established irreparable harm. It stated that harm could not be based on requests or rulings that had not yet been made, and that defendants could seek a stay later if plaintiffs filed enforcement motions or requested remedies.

The court further found that the interests of plaintiffs and the public interest weighed against a stay. It stated that the February 2 order and plaintiffs’ evidence suggested that significant and systemic due process violations might be continuing, and that pausing the litigation could allow further violations. Continuing the settlement obligations and the court’s jurisdiction also furthered public policy favoring settlement agreements.

Disposition

The court concluded that defendants’ appeal did not remove its jurisdiction to enforce the February 2 order or the settlement provisions triggered by it. It declined to pause enforcement and DENIED Defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings pending the appeal of the February 2 Order.