Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. et al v. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians et al

Filing 176

ORDER RE: 160 Stipulation to Exhibits for Record of Preliminary Injunction Hearing and 162 Motion to Admit Exhibits into the Evidentiary Record of Preliminary Injunction Hearing. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/16/2014. (voc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC.,
STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP., SAYBROOK
FUND INVESTORS, LLC, LDF
ACQUISITION, LLC, WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., and GODFREY & KAHN, S.C.,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v.
13-cv-372-wmc
LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE
SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS and
LAKE OF THE TORCHES ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Defendants.

Following the hearing on preliminary injunction, the parties were instructed to
submit to the court: (1) the exhibits that they have stipulated will form part of the record
on preliminary injunction; and (2) motions to admit any exhibits on which they could not
reach agreement. The parties have since filed a stipulation (dkt. #160), which the court
ADOPTS. The remainder of this order briefly addresses the parties’ other submissions and
objections.
Taking first the Stifel plaintiffs’ notice (dkt. #159), the court OVERRULES the
objections interposed to the deposition designations of David DeYoung, with the exception
of those few objections defendants did not contest. (See dkt. #165.)
Next, the defendants moved to admit certain other exhibits into the record. (Dkt.
#162.) Godfrey’s objections to that motion fall into two main categories. First, they object
to defendants’ exhibits 211, 218, 219, 220 and 221, as containing impermissible legal
conclusions, and to any remaining portions of those exhibits on relevance grounds.

Consistent with this court’s initial ruling on this issue, all portions of those affidavits
constituting legal opinion are EXCLUDED.

To the extent additional portions of those

affidavits are not legal opinion and pertain to NIGC custom and practice, the court will
OVERRULE the objection and admit those materials for whatever limited relevance they
may have.1 Godfrey also objects to the exhibits attached to the affidavits but provides no
grounds for that objection, so it, too, is OVERRULED.

Second, Godfrey objects to the

admission of previous opinions of this court on the grounds that they do not constitute
evidence (exhibits 223, 235). The court agrees and will not admit them into the record as
“evidence,” but will obviously consider them as precedent.
The Saybrook plaintiffs’ objections are resolved as follows:


The objections to the NIGC materials (exhibits 212, 213 and 214) are
OVERRULED, for the same reasons as Godfrey’s objections to evidence on NIGC
custom and practice.



The objection to various filings from other lawsuits on relevance grounds (exhibits
215, 216, 217, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 234, 235) are also
OVERRULED. Defendants respond that those filings serve to show either: (1)
that plaintiffs have previously sought to enforce consensual relationships with the
tribe; or (2) that plaintiffs have previously argued contractual claims do not give
rise to a federal question. The court agrees.



The objection on relevance grounds to e-mails surrounding the negotiation of the
Bond Transaction, as well as the lease between the defendants and the

Godfrey’s conditional motion to admit affidavits in response is granted subject to the same nuance:
to the extent they contain impermissible legal opinion, they will not be admitted.
1

2

declaration of Karen Maki (exhibits 236, 237, 238, 242, 243, 244, 245 and 247)
are OVERRULED. The Saybrook plaintiffs’ real argument is that those exhibits
do not serve to establish Montana jurisdiction, not that they are irrelevant.
Finally, the Saybrook plaintiffs ask that if the court admits the Coleman affidavit, it
also admit the documents produced by Coleman (exhibit 219) for the limited purpose of
determining the basis of her opinions. Plaintiffs neither provide a reason to keep those
documents out for other purposes, nor dispute defendants’ argument that the exhibits are
relevant for the same reasons as the NIGC materials described above. Plaintiffs’ objection
to exhibit 219 is, therefore, OVERRULED.
Entered this 16th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

3