Hardesty et al v. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District et al

Filing 344

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 02/15/17 ORDERING that the 342 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED; plaintiff's remaining 287 Motions in Limine are GRANTED IN PART and RESERVED IN PART for ruling until first day of trial; this Order SUPERSEDES 340 Order on Motion in Limine. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JOSEPH HARDESTY and YVETTE
HARDESTY,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:10-cv-2414-KJM-KJN

v.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

JAY SCHNEIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

20
21
22
23

No. 2:12-cv-2457-KJM-KJN
AMENDED ORDER

v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
1

1

County defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order on

2

certain motions in limine filed on February 10, 2017. See ECF Nos. 340, 342. Having reviewed

3

the motion, the court on its own motion issues this order to correct and supersede its prior order.

4

Plaintiffs have filed several motions in limine. Hardesty Mot., ECF No. 287; Pls.

5

Jnt. Motion, ECF No. 291; Schneider Mot. No. 1, ECF No. 292, Schneider Mot. No. 2, ECF No.

6

293. The court decided four of these motions in its Final Pretrial Conference Order. ECF No.

7

313 (granting two of the Hardestys’ motions in limine, denying the joint motion without

8

prejudice, and denying one of the Schneiders’ motions without prejudice). The court did not

9

address four of the motions in its prior order. Id. at 32. On February 6, 2017, county-related

10

defendants filed their response to the remaining motions. Opp’n, ECF No. 334. Because

11

defendants indicate their non-opposition to three of the four remaining motions, the court resolves

12

those motions here.

13

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

14

The court issues rulings on the following motions in limine based on the record

15

before the court. Each ruling is made without prejudice and is subject to proper renewal, in whole

16

or in part, during trial. If a party wishes to contest a pre-trial ruling, it must do so through a

17

proper motion or objection, or otherwise forfeit appeal on such grounds. See Fed. R. Evid.

18

103(a); Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Where a

19

district court makes a tentative in limine ruling excluding evidence, the exclusion of that evidence

20

may only be challenged on appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to offer such evidence at trial.”)

21

(alteration, citation, and quotation omitted). In addition, unless otherwise stated below,

22

challenges to expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S.

23

579 (1993) are denied without prejudice. Should a party wish to renew a Daubert challenge at

24

trial, it should alert the court, at which point the court may grant limited voir dire the day before

25

such expert may be called to testify. The court now turns to the motions in limine pending before

26

the court.

27
28
2

1

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

2
3

Plaintiffs’ four remaining motions in limine seek to exclude the following
evidence:

4

1. Evidence of or reference to the Hardestys’ mining activity at the Big Cut Mine

5

in El Dorado County, including alleged violations, water discharge dispute, actions taken against

6

Joseph Hardesty, related press or news articles, or orders shutting down the mine. Hardesty Mot.

7
8

2. Evidence of or reference to the prior lawsuit between the Schneiders and
Hardesty. Id.

9

3. Evidence of or reference to comments or rulings by the Sacramento County

10

Superior Court at a preliminary injunction hearing related to the existence or scope of a vested

11

property interest or vested right to mine. Id.

12
13
14
15
16

4. Evidence or references contradicting the County’s administrative determination
of the Schneiders’ vested rights. Schneider Mot. No. 2.
The county-related defendants do not oppose (1) and (2) above. Opp’n at 2.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS Hardesty’s motions as to that evidence.
The county-related defendants do not oppose (3) above. See id. at 10–11.

17

Hardesty’s motion seeks to exclude evidence from the jury. See Hardesty Mot. at 5. The county-

18

related defendants do not object to such evidence being excluded from the jury. Opp’n at 11.

19

Accordingly, the court GRANTS Hardesty’s motion as to that evidence.

20
21

The court does not address (4) above. Any remaining motions will be decided by
the court on the first day of trial.

22

This order resolves ECF No. 287 and supersedes ECF No. 340.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: February 15, 2017.

25
26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
3