Hardy et al v. Bartmess

Filing 241

ORDER granting Barmess's request to supplement the record with John Hardy's deposition by December 23, 2011, and file it under seal, if necessary. The Court directs Bartmess to provide to the Court an exact list of all witnesses, and infor mation on each witness, as set forth in this Order, Hardy is directed to respond to Bartmess's motion on the probate-claim issue by December 30, 2011. Status reports should be filed by December 23, 2011. The Court will hold another hearing on January 10, 2012 starting at 9:00 a.m.. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/20/11. (kpr) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2011: ) # 1 Main Document - Correct, and text modified to correct typographical error.) (thd).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES HARDY, JR.; HARDY RESOURCES,

LLC; JOHN HARDY; EVERGREEN PROCESSING, LLC,

formerly B&H RESOURCES, LLC; MARY HARDY;

HARDY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; ELITE

COIL TUBING SOLUTIONS, LLC; and

NORTHSTAR FARMS, LLC

v.

PLAINTIFFS

No.1:09-cv-41-DPM

HELEN BARTMESS, Executrix of the
Estate of George Bartmess

DEFENDANT

ORDER
The Court appreciates counsel's work at the December 15th motion
hearing. Here is where things stand.
1. The Hardys came into the hearing with four live claims: fraud, breach
of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contracts with third parties, and
breach of the LLC Membership Interest Purchase Agreement. The Hardys
indicated their intention not to pursue tortious-interference as a stand-alone
claim, but rather present proof about this alleged conduct as part of their
other claims. The tortious-interference claim is therefore dismissed without
prejudice. The parties seem to agree, moreover, that the Hardys may proceed

with a claim under the Arkansas Trade Secrets Act-though they disagree
about exactly how the Act applies and relates to the other claims. The Court
will continue to reflect on this issue.
2. The Court denied Bartmess's motion for summary judgment,
concluding that the record presented genuine disputes of material fact on the
three remaining claims. As promised, however, the Court will return to the
record and the governing law and reconsider. The Court recognizes that it
does not know the record as well as the parties; and perhaps the Court did not
discern how the undisputed facts and the law fit together on the remaining
claims. Bartmess requested at the hearing to supplement the record with John
Hardy's deposition.

That request is granted.

Bartmess should file a

condensed copy of that deposition by 23 December 2011, and may file under
seal if necessary.
3. The Court remains concerned about trial-related issues. The Court
appreciates the Hardys revisiting their witness list and reconsidering how
much time they really need to present their case adequately. The Court
would appreciate Bartmess doing the same thing. The Court needs an exact
list of all witnesses, whether each will testify live or by deposition, and a

-2­

requested amount of time for each person's direct testimony. The Court
reminds the parties that, at the October hearing, the Hardys said they thought
they could try their case in a little more than a week and Bartmess said she
could try her counterclaim in no more than a day. Please file these status
reports by 23 December 2011.
4. The Court looks forward to Bartmess's motion on the probate-claim
issue. The motion is due by 23 December 2011. Hardy should respond by 30
December 2011. No reply will be needed.
5. The Court will hold another hearing on 10 January 2012 starting at
9:00 a.m. The Court will consider and decide the pending evidentiary
motions, the expected motion on the probate-claim issue, and other trial­
related matters. The Court may revisit the summary-judgment issues then
too. The Court also requests the parties' views on whether the trial should be
held in Batesville as planned or Little Rock. The Court would appreciate
getting those views as part of the December 23rd witness lists. The Court
would like to know, in particular, how the trial location will affect each
witness and each party.

-3­

So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

20 December 2011

-4­