Jeff D. Ex Rel. Belodoff v. Otter
643 F.3d 278
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Class of indigent Idaho children with severe emotional/mental disabilities sued state officials for inadequate care under US and Idaho law.
- Three consent decrees (1983, 1990, 1998) and an Implementation Plan 2001 established a 252-item framework for reform.
- District court held a 2006 final compliance hearing, found some non-compliance but substantial compliance overall, and ordered steps to achieve compliance before vacating the decrees.
- In 2007 the DHW moved to vacate; court vacated the decrees, prompting appellate challenge by the Plaintiffs.
- Ninth Circuit held district court erred by applying civil contempt standards to determine substantial compliance and by measuring compliance solely against Action Items; reversed vacatur and remanded, while affirming protective-orders rulings on discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for vacatur of consent decrees | Plaintiffs contend contempt/burden inappropriate; must assess substantial compliance. | Defendants argue Rule 60(b)(5) requires substantial compliance; contempt standard valid for determining compliance. | District court erred; contempt standard improper for vacatur; vacatur reversed. |
| Use of Action Items as sole measure of substantial compliance | Action Items alone do not capture the decrees' broader purposes. | Agreement to implement Plan makes Action Items the primary compliance metric. | Courts must consider de facto purposes/goals beyond Action Items; improper to rely exclusively on Action Items. |
| Protective orders on depositions | Plaintiffs challenge protective orders limiting depositions of Foltman, Kurtz, Holland-Smith. | District court properly protected deliberative materials under privilege; no error. | Protective orders affirmed; no error in privilege rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (standard for vacatur; equity in consent decrees)
- Jeff D. v. Kempthorne (Jeff D. IV), 365 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2004) (burden for vacatur under Rule 60(b)(5) and substantial compliance)
- Joseph A. v. NM Dept. of Human Servs., 69 F.3d 1081 (10th Cir. 1995) (substantial compliance concept and contractlike view of decrees)
- Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992) (consideration of a court's ongoing obligations and the decree's goals)