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

Filing 703

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 06/26/23 ORDERING that the Court adopts the parties' Stipulation Regarding Motions in limine as set forth. The motions in limine identified in the stipulation are resolved as set forth. (Benson, A.)

1 RICHARD S. LINKERT, Bar No. 88756
[e-mail]
2 MATHENY SEARS LINKERT JAIME LLP
3638 American River Drive
3 Sacramento, CA 95864-4711
Telephone:
[phone]
4 Facsimile:
[phone]

COLE HUBER LLP
2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661

5 Attorneys for Defendant
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
6
DEREK P. COLE, Bar No. 204250
7 [e-mail]
COLE HUBER LLP
8 2281 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 300
Roseville, California 95661
9 Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
10
Co-Counsel for Defendant
11 SACRAMENTO COUNTY
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

15
16
17
18

JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR
19 QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et
al.,
20
Defendants.
21
22 AND RELATED CONSOLIDATED CASES

Case No.: 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
Consolidated with: 2:12-cv-2457-KJM-KJN
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
Judge:
Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller
Magistrate: Hon. Kendall J. Newman
Trial Date: Not yet set
Action Filed: September 8, 2010

23
24
25
26
27
28
4894-5260-1452.1

Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
1
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1
2

STIPULATION REGARDING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Plaintiffs, Joseph and Yvette Hardesty (collectively, the “Hardestys”), and Defendant

3 County of Sacramento (“County”) stipulate as follows for purposes of trial in this matter:
4

1.

This stipulation is intended to express the parties’ agreement regarding the resolution

5 of certain motions in limine, as detailed below, in advance of the Court’s hearing concerning the
6 same, scheduled for June 30, 2023. The parties agree that the agreements reached below shall be
7 incorporated into their Joint Pretrial Statement per Cal. E. D. Local Rule 281(b)(14).
8

Hardesty Motions

9

2.

The Hardestys have filed motions in limine that seek to preclude the offering of

10 evidence or argument at trial of the following:

COLE HUBER LLP
2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661

11

A.

Any suggestion that the Hardestys have improperly failed to resume mining

12

at the Schneider Historic Mine (“SHM”) or could have resumed mining at SHM by the time

13

of trial or should resume mining at SHM in the future (Hardesty Motion in Limine No. 1);

14

and

15

B.

Any reference to alternative sources of income as actual or potential

16

compensation for the County’s conduct or as mitigation of the Hardestys’ damages

17

(Hardesty Motion in Limine No. 2).

18

3.

The County agrees not to introduce any documentary or testimonial evidence, offer

19 any expert opinion, or provide any argument regarding the subjects covered by Hardesty Motions
20 in Limine Nos. 1 and 2. The County’s stipulation to these motions includes the commitment not to
21 introduce evidence, offer expert opinion, or provide argument concerning the County’s restoration
22 of vested rights at SHM.
23

4.

The County also agrees not to introduce any documentary or testimonial evidence,

24 offer any expert opinion, or provide any argument regarding the following matters, which are
25 addressed in Hardesty motions in limine the County did not oppose:
26

A.

Hardesty Motion in Limine No. 3, which pertains to any reference to prior

27

arrests of, criminal charges against, criminal investigations of, or civil penalty actions

28

against Joseph Hardesty or his friend Richard (“Rick”) Churches;
4894-5260-1452.1

Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
2
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

B.

Hardesty Motion in Limine No. 4, which pertains to any reference to mining

2

activity by plaintiffs at the Big Cut Mine in El Dorado County, including but not limited to

3

alleged violations, water discharge disputes, actions taken against Joseph Hardesty, any

4

related press or news articles, or orders shutting down the mine, or the existence or

5

settlement of the lawsuit brought by the State Mining & Geology Board; and

6

C.

Hardesty Motion in Limine No. 5, which pertains to any reference to any

7

prior lawsuits between Schneider and the Hardestys or related orders.

8

County Motions

9

5.

The County has filed motions in limine that seek to preclude the offering of evidence

10 or argument at trial of the following:

COLE HUBER LLP
2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661

11

A.

12

The business cost the Hardestys would incur if they were to erect a new

central mining (“wash”) plant at the SHM (County Motion in Limine No. 5); and

13

B.

The business costs the Hardestys would incur generally, including the

14

securing of a new mining plant, equipment, rolling stock, and labor force, if they were to

15

resume mining at SHM (County Motion in Limine No. 7, first ground, § III.A).

16

6.

The Hardestys agree not to introduce any documentary or testimonial evidence,

17 offer any expert opinion, or provide any argument regarding the subjects covered by County
18 Motion in Limine No. 5 and the above-referenced first ground of Motion in Limine No. 7 at § III.A.
19

7.

Nothing in this Stipulation is intended to address or resolve the additional ground

20 the County has raised in its Motion in Limine No. 7 concerning loans the Hardestys took out and
21 the accrual of interest associated with those loans. (Motion in Limine No. 7, second ground,
22 § III.B.)
23

8.

This Stipulation does not constitute an agreement regarding the legal or factual

24 arguments made by the County in Motion in Limine No. 5 or the above-referenced first ground of
25 Motion in Limine No. 7 at § III.A, and the Hardestys expressly reserve all rights to rebut such
26 arguments should the need arise. Instead, the Stipulation is solely an agreement not to introduce
27 evidence or argument regarding the subjects as stated in paragraph 6.
28 / / /
4894-5260-1452.1

Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
3
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

9.

The County’s pretrial motions in limine include County Motion in Limine No. 8,

2 which seeks to require that the parties share demonstrative evidence and written presentations at
3 least 48 hours prior to their being shown to the jury. The Hardestys opposed this motion. The parties
4 now agree that they will agree to share opening statement demonstrative evidence 24 hours in
5 advance and other demonstrative evidence by the night before its use in court. With this agreement,
6 the County agrees that its Motion in Limine No. 8 shall be withdrawn.
7

So stipulated.

8
9 Dated: June 22, 2023
10

COLE HUBER LLP
2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661

11
12
13
14 Dated: June 22, 2023
15
16
17

/s/ Justin P. Tschoepe
R. Paul Yetter (pro hac vice)
Justin P. Tschoepe (pro hac vice)
Christian J. Ward (pro hac vice)
YETTER COLEMAN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOSEPH and YVETTE HARDESTY
/s/ Derek P. Cole
Derek P. Cole
COLE HUBER LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4894-5260-1452.1

Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1
2

ORDER
For good cause shown, the Court adopts the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Motions in limine

3 as set forth above. The motions in limine identified in the stipulation are resolved as set forth therein.
4

SO ORDERED.

5
6 Dated: June 26, 2023.
7
8
9
10

COLE HUBER LLP
2281 LAVA RIDGE COURT, SUITE 300
ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95661

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4894-5260-1452.1

Case No. 2:10-cv-02414-KJM-KJN
5
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE