HARDESTY v. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Nos. 2:10-cv-2414-KJM-KJN, 2:12-cv-2457-KJM-KJN

JOSEPH HARDESTY and YVETTE HARDESTY, Plaintiffs, v. SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. JAY SCHNEIDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joseph Hardesty, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony George Arger , Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson.

Joseph Hardesty, Plaintiff, represented by Collin J. Cox , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, George David Robertson , Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson, Jonathan J. Tew , Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson, pro hac vice, R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert K. Ellis , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice.

Yvette Hardesty, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony George Arger , Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson, Collin J. Cox , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, George David Robertson , Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson, Jonathan J. Tew , Robertson, Johnson, Miller & Williamson, pro hac vice, R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice & Robert K. Ellis , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice.

Jay L Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Susan J. Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Jake J. Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Leland A. Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Katherine A Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Leland H. Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Jared T. Schneider, Plaintiff, represented by R. Paul Yetter , Yetter Coleman, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Manning Ross , Law Office of Richard M. Ross & Glenn W. Peterson , Millstone Peterson & Watts, LLP.

Dennis O'Bryant, Defendant, represented by David G. Alderson , California Department Of Justice Office & Stephen Charles Pass , State of California, Office of the Attorney General.

Gay Norris, Defendant, represented by David G. Alderson , California Department Of Justice Office & Stephen Charles Pass , State of California, Office of the Attorney General.

Steve Testa, Defendant, represented by David G. Alderson , California Department Of Justice Office & Stephen Charles Pass , State of California, Office of the Attorney General.

Sacramento County, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Robert Sherry, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Cindy Storelli, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Leighann Moffitt, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Curt Taras, Defendant, represented by David G. Alderson , California Department Of Justice Office.

Roger Dickinson, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Jeff Gamel, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Tammy Derby, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

Carl Simpson, Defendant, represented by Gregory P. O'Dea , Longyear O'Dea and Lavra & Mark Peter O'Dea , Longyear, O'dea & Lavra, LLP.

David Bieber, Defendant, represented by Sharon Muir , Collins Collins Muir & Stewart, LLP, Ryan Patrick Harley , Collins Collins Muir & Stewart LLP & Ryan Eric Palumbo , Collins Collins Muir & Stewart LLP.


KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs have filed several motions in limine. Hardesty Mot., ECF No. 287; Pls. Jnt. Motion, ECF No. 291; Schneider Mot. No. 1, ECF No. 292; Schneider Mot. No. 2, ECF No. 293. The court decided four of these motions in its Final Pretrial Conference Order. ECF No. 313 (granting two of the Hardestys' motions in limine, denying the joint motion without prejudice, and denying one of the Schneiders' motions without prejudice). The court did not address four of the motions in its prior order. Id. at 32. On February 6, 2017, county-related defendants filed their response to the remaining motions. Opp'n, ECF No. 334. Because defendants indicate their non-opposition to three of the four remaining motions, the court resolves those motions here.

I. EFFECT OF IN LIMINE RULINGS

The court issues rulings on the following motions in limine based on the record before the court. Each ruling is made without prejudice and is subject to proper renewal, in whole or in part, during trial. If a party wishes to contest a pre-trial ruling, it must do so through a proper motion or objection, or otherwise forfeit appeal on such grounds. See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); Tennison v. Circus Circus Enters., Inc., 244 F.3d 684, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) ("Where a district court makes a tentative in limine ruling excluding evidence, the exclusion of that evidence may only be challenged on appeal if the aggrieved party attempts to offer such evidence at trial.") (alteration, citation, and quotation omitted). In addition, unless otherwise stated below, challenges to expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) are denied without prejudice. Should a party wish to renew a Daubert challenge at trial, it should alert the court, at which point the court may grant limited voir dire before such expert may be called to testify. The court now turns to the motions in limine pending before the court.

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

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

1. Evidence of or reference to the Hardestys' mining activity at the Big Cut Mine in El Dorado County, including alleged violations, water discharge dispute, actions taken against Joseph Hardesty, related press or news articles, or orders shutting down the mine. Hardesty Mot.

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

3. Evidence of or reference to comments or rulings by the Sacramento County Superior Court at a preliminary injunction hearing related to the existence or scope of a vested property interest or vested right to mine. Id.

4. Evidence or references contradicting the County's administrative determination of the Schneiders' vested rights. Schneider Mot. No. 2.

The country-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 (4) above. See id. at 10-11. Schneider's motion seeks to exclude evidence from the jury. See Schneider Mot. No. 2 at 6. The county-related defendants do not object to such evidence being excluded from the jury. Opp'n at 11. Accordingly, the court GRANTS Schneider's motion to the extent unopposed.

The court does not address (3) above. Any remaining motions will be addressed by the court on the first day of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases