Grass Valley City v. Newmont Mining Corp, et al

Filing 485

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/16/09 ORDERING that having considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the exhibits in question in more detail, and for the reasons set forth above and on the record at the January 13, 2009 hearing the objections to defendant's exhibits K-1-p and K-1-q and plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 4 are OVERRULED.(Becknal, R)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / This case came before the court on January 13, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. for a final status conference prior to the jury trial set for January 20, 2009. Michael D. Axline and Evan Eickmeyer appeared in court on behalf of plaintiff City of Grass Valley. Michael G. Romey and Elizabeth H. Temkin appeared in court and Susan P. Welch appeared telephonically on behalf of defendants Newmont Mining Corporation, Newmont USA Limited, Newmont North America Exploration Limited, New Verde Mines LLC, and Newmont Realty Company. At the final status conference, counsel requested that in order to facilitate preparation of their opening statements the court rule prior to trial on four objections, two by each party, to exhibits offered for admission. At the conference, the court overruled plaintiff's objection to defendant's exhibits K-1-p and K-1-q with certain redactions as stated on the record. The court also heard argument on defendants' objection to plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 4 on grounds 1 v. NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION, et al., ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0149 DAD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

of relevance as well as prejudice, confusion and waste of time. See Fed. R. Evid. 402 & 403. After the hearing, at the request of defense counsel, the court also considered plaintiff's exhibits 2 and 3 for context. Having considered the parties' arguments and reviewed the exhibits in question in more detail, the court overrules defendant's objections to plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 4. First, as previously noted, Judge Burrell relied upon these objected-to exhibits in ruling on the summary judgment motions in this case. Moreover, the undersigned has determined that although the weight of plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 4 may be limited for the reasons argued by defense counsel, they nonetheless have some relevance to the issues being tried in this action. For the reasons set forth above and on the record at the January 13, 2009 hearing the objections to defendant's exhibits K-1-p and K-1-q and plaintiff's exhibits 1 and 4 are overruled. DATED: January 16, 2009.

ddad1/orders.consent/cityofgrassvalley0149.oafsc

2