Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02643/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02643-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT E. LEVY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF ALPINE, et al. 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-02643-KJM-CKD 

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 

On June 3, 2016, the court held a final pretrial conference. Douglas Watts 

appeared for plaintiff Robert Levy, and Gayle Tonon appeared for defendant Alpine County. The 

court now makes the following findings and orders: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Jurisdiction and venue 

are not contested. 

JURY 

Both parties have demanded a jury trial. The jury will consist of eight jurors and 

two alternates. 

UNDISPUTED FACTS 

1. Robert Levy was born on September 9, 1964. 

2. Levy has been a sworn peace officer since 1985. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 15
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 

27 

28 

2

3. Henry “Skip” Veatch served as Alpine County Sheriff from 1990 until 2002. 

4. Levy began employment with Alpine County on April 16, 1995, as a Deputy 

Sheriff working under Veatch. 

5. Levy was promoted to Undersheriff in 2000. 

6. John Crawford succeeded Veatch as County Sheriff and served from November 

2002 until May 14, 2014. 

7. Alpine County and the State of California began discussions about the 

telecommunications tower on Leviathan Peak in 2008. 

8. On August 21, 2012, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County 

Administrative Officer, Pamela Knorr, to retain the services of a third party to investigate the 

Leviathan Peak Communications Project. 

9. A law firm, Liebert Cassidy & Whitmore, was engaged to prepare a report, the 

“LCW Report,” which was completed and dated November 15, 2012. 

10. Levy never received a poor evaluation during his employment in Alpine County. 

11. The offices at the Alpine County Courthouse and in Turtle Rock are separated by 

about five miles. 

12. Beth Nunes was the Human Resource Specialist for Alpine County, from July 

2006 until her retirement in November of 2012. 

CENTRAL FACTUAL DISPUTES 

1. What roles Levy, Knorr, Tom Sweeney, and others in Alpine County played in the 

Leviathan Peak project. 

2. Whether Knorr and others in Alpine County’s leadership terminated or otherwise 

caused the departure of numerous employees older than forty as part of a campaign to create a 

“younger, cheaper workforce.” 

3. When and to whom Levy complained about Knorr’s actions and what his 

complaints entailed. 

4. In what capacity Knorr submitted reports regarding the Leviathan Peak project, 

and in general, what role Knorr played in commissioning the LCW Report. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 15
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 

27 

28 

3

5. Whether and how Knorr and Sweeney retaliated against Levy for making 

complaints. 

6. Whether and why Knorr and Sweeney treated Levy unequally. 

7. Whether Levy suffered damages as a result of retaliation or unequal treatment, and 

if so, the amount and sources of his damages. 

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES AND MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Levy’s Motions in Limine

1. To exclude all documents and reports prepared by or on behalf of Alpine County 

that were not presented to Levy during discovery or with an initial disclosure, including but not 

limited to any and all investigations, reports, and similar evidence from the County’s retained 

investigator Ken MacHold. 

2. To exclude non-testifying County-affiliated witnesses from the courtroom, 

including but not limited to former defendants Donald Jardine, Philip Bennett, and Tom Sweeney. 

3. To exclude the written report of Defendant’s retained expert, Jared L. Zwickey. 

Alpine County’s Motions in Limine

1. To exclude any reference to motive regarding the relationship between Levy, 

Knorr, and Sweeney, on the grounds that motive is not relevant and would confuse and mislead 

the jury. 

2. To exclude the reports and testimony of Levy’s retained and non-retained expert 

witnesses, filed and noticed separately, ECF No. 45, and discussed in more detail below. 

3. To limit expert witnesses to the testimony offered at deposition. 

4. To exclude all records and documents subject to disclosure pursuant to Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a) that were not produced. 

5. To exclude any and all expert testimony other than that disclosed in compliance 

with the Status (Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order, ECF No. 9, and impeachment witnesses. 

6. To preclude Levy from introducing evidence and to preclude his attorney from 

eliciting testimony at trial concerning personnel records, actions, investigations, or administrative 

procedures involving Levy. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 15
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 

27 

28 

4

7. To exclude witnesses from the courtroom during trial. 

8. To determine the relevance of the legislative act regarding investigation and 

funding of the telecommunications projects and the appropriate immunity. 

9. To bar reference to discussions that took place during any closed or executive 

session of the Board of Supervisors, as disclosure would violate the Brown Act. 

10. To bar discussion of settlement negotiations before or during litigation. 

11. To exclude other specific evidence and testimony identified on Levy’s list of 

evidence and witnesses. 

Briefing and Argument on Motions in Limine

Each party may submit an omnibus brief in support of its motions in limine not 

already briefed no later than June 17, 2016, with the exception of the County’s second and eighth 

motions in limine, which are now resolved below in this order. Corresponding opposition briefs 

or statements of non-opposition must be filed no later than July 1, 2016. Reply arguments, if 

any, will be heard on the first day of trial. 

Alpine County’s Second Motion in Limine: Expert Testimony 

Alpine County moves in limine to prevent Levy from presenting certain expert 

opinions. The County argues these witnesses each made unreliable assumptions about the facts of 

this case. 

An expert witness’s opinions can be admissible only if they “will help the trier of 

fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue” and if the expert reliably applied 

his or her expertise to the facts of the case, among other criteria. Fed. R. Evid. 702. Whether 

expert testimony is admissible is a question within the trial court’s discretion. See Gen. Elec. 

Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142 (1997). 

The court plays a “gatekeeping” role to ensure all expert testimony, scientific or 

otherwise, is both relevant and reliable. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147–49 

(1999). “Expert opinion testimony is relevant if the knowledge underlying it has a valid 

connection to the pertinent inquiry. And it is reliable if the knowledge underlying it has a reliable 

basis in the knowledge and experience of the relevant discipline.” City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 15
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 

27 

28 

5

Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 870 (2014) (citation and quotation 

marks omitted). The district court must screen out “unreliable nonsense opinions,” but the jury 

may hear and weigh expert opinions that are impeachable. Id. at 1044. In other words, the 

district court does not determine whether the expert is right or wrong, but whether the testimony 

would be helpful. Id. 

A corollary of these general rules divides questions of weight from questions of 

admissibility: because the jury decides what evidence to believe, the factual basis of an expert’s 

opinions are correctly tested by cross-examination and contrary evidence, not by evidentiary 

objections. See, e.g., Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 970 (9th 

Cir. 2013); Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 n.14 (9th Cir. 2004). 

“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the 

burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible 

evidence.” Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596 (1993). 

Here, Levy intends to present the testimony of John Hancock, Ph.D., who 

estimated the dollar value of Levy’s damages on the basis of several assumptions. Hancock’s 

calculations presume Levy would have been elected as Sheriff of Alpine County in September 

2014. See Tonon Decl. Ex. A, at 8, ECF No. 45-4. The County argues this assumption is 

speculative. See Mot. in Limine at 5, 7–8, ECF No. 45-1. Similarly, the County argues John 

Crawford’s expert opinions about Levy’s chances at election are built on an inaccurate factual 

foundation, because he incorrectly assumes both that the LCW report prevented Levy from being 

elected as Sheriff and that Pamela Knorr had no authorization to commission that report. See id.

at 5. Finally, the County argues similar faulty assumptions underlie Skip Veatch’s opinions about 

Levy’s chances to be elected. See id. at 6, 9. These arguments attack the factual basis of each 

opinion. They do not address questions of reliability under Rule 702. The County will have 

ample opportunity to highlight its interpretation of the evidence at trial. Its second motion in 

limine is denied. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 15
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 

27 

28 

6

Alpine County’s Eighth Motion in Limine: Legislative Absolute Immunity 

The court previously found Levy had presented evidence that could lead a 

reasonable trier of fact to believe “(1) the County’s administrative officer, acting within her 

policy-making responsibility, instituted an investigation of the telecommunications projects in an 

effort to discredit Levy and terminate his employment and (2) the Board of Supervisors approved 

the investigation.” Order Mar. 10, 2016, at 10, ECF No. 44. The County contends that the 

investigation was an act of the legislature in protecting the interests of its citizens and that this 

case is therefore barred by absolute legislative immunity. In support of this position, the County 

cites Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951), and Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998). 

As an initial matter, a motion in limine is the incorrect procedural tool for this job. 

Motions in limine are designed to address the admissibility of evidence, not substantive legal 

positions. See Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order at 4, ECF No. 13. 

In any event, the County’s argument does not fit the facts of this case. Although 

federal, state, regional, and local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability 

for their legislative activities, Bogan, 523 U.S. at 46, 49, this immunity does not apply here, as the 

County is the only remaining defendant, see id. at 53 (“Municipalities themselves can be held 

liable for constitutional violations . . . .”); Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning 

Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 405 n.29 (1979) (“If the [individual legislators] have enacted 

unconstitutional legislation, there is no reason why relief against [the legislative body] itself 

should not adequately vindicate [the plaintiffs’] interests.” (citing Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. 

of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978))); Tenney, 341 U.S. at 378 (“It should be noted that this is a 

case in which the defendants are members of a legislature.”). The County’s eighth motion in 

limine is denied. 

RELIEF SOUGHT 

Levy seeks economic damages and general damages according to proof, in 

addition to attorneys’ fees and costs. Levy is not seeking injunctive relief. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 15
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 

27 

28 

7

POINTS OF LAW 

The parties may present legal arguments in trial briefs to be filed with this court no 

later than seven days prior to the date of trial. Defendants have indicated they may argue in 

their trial brief for trial of some claims to be precluded on grounds of qualified immunity. 

ABANDONED ISSUES 

None 

STIPULATIONS 

None. 

WITNESSES 

Levy’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A. Alpine County’s 

witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment B. Each party may call any witnesses designated by 

the other. 

A. The court will not permit any other witness to testify unless: 

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for 

the purpose of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated 

at the pretrial conference, or 

(2) The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the 

proffering party makes the showing required in “B,” below. 

B. Upon the post-pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at 

trial, the party shall promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the 

existence of the unlisted witnesses so the court may consider whether the 

witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses will not be permitted 

unless: 

(1) The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the 

discovery cutoff; 

 (2) The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon 

discovery of the witness; 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 7 of 15
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 

27 

28 

8

(3) If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and 

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s 

testimony was provided to opposing parties. 

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES 

Levy has not submitted a list of exhibits he intends to introduce at trial, but has 

described categories of documents from which he intends to draw exhibits. These categories are 

listed in Attachment C. By listing these categories in Attachment C, the court does not approve 

this method of identification. At trial, Levy’s exhibits must be listed numerically, and as 

specified below, he must exchange exhibits with counsel for Alpine County no later than twentyeight days before trial. He must also prepare exhibit binders with tabs identifying each exhibit. 

The County may object if Levy attempts to introduce an exhibit that it believes he identified 

inadequately, and a proposed exhibit may be excluded on this basis. 

The County’s exhibits are listed in Attachment D. At trial, the County’s exhibits 

shall be listed alphabetically. All exhibits must be pre-marked. 

The parties must prepare exhibit binders for use by the court at trial, with a side tab 

identifying each exhibit in accordance with the specifications above. Each binder shall have an 

identification label on the front and spine. 

The parties must exchange exhibits no later than twenty-eight days before trial. 

Any objections to exhibits are due no later than fourteen days before trial. 

A. The court will not admit exhibits other than those identified on the exhibit 

lists referenced above unless: 

(1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for 

the purpose of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably 

anticipated, or 

(2) The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the 

proffering party makes the showing required in Paragraph “B,” below. 

B. Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party shall 

promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 8 of 15
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 

27 

28 

9

that the court may consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be 

received unless the proffering party demonstrates: 

(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier; 

(2) The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their 

existence; 

(3) The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically 

possible) to the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the 

proffering party must show that it has made the exhibits reasonably 

available for inspection by the opposing parties. 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS AND DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS 

Neither party currently intends to use deposition transcripts in lieu of live 

testimony. 

Counsel must lodge the sealed original copy of any deposition transcript to be used 

at trial with the Clerk of the Court no later than fourteen days before trial. 

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS 

None. 

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS 

Defendants Donald Jardine and Philip Bennett were dismissed without prejudice 

by stipulation on March 7, 2014. ECF No. 8. Defendant Nancy Thornburg was dismissed with 

prejudice by stipulation on October 16, 2015. ECF No. 24. On the same day, Levy’s sixth claim 

for violation of his rights under the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Cal. 

Gov’t Code § 3300 et seq., and his eighth claim for negligence were also dismissed by stipulation. 

ECF No. 24. The court granted summary judgment to Alpine County on all but the first claim on 

March 10, 2016. ECF No. 44. 

SETTLEMENT 

The parties agreed to participate in a settlement conference before the undersigned, 

which was completed on May 10, 2016. ECF No. 57. The case did not settle. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 9 of 15
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 

27 

28 

10

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

The following statement of the case will be read to the jury during voir dire and at 

the beginning of the trial: 

Robert E. Levy brings this case against his former longtime 

employer, the County of Alpine, for compensatory damages and 

attorneys’ fees for violation of his civil rights. Levy contends that 

the County unlawfully retaliated against him after he exercised his 

First Amendment rights while employed as Undersheriff in the 

County Sheriff’s Office. The County denies these allegations, 

contends its actions were appropriate, and argues Levy suffered no 

harm for which he can receive damages in this lawsuit. 

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES 

None. 

IMPARTIAL EXPERTS OR LIMITATION OF EXPERTS 

None. 

ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

Each party seeks attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL AND TRIAL DATE 

Jury trial is set for August 15, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom Three before the 

Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. Trial is anticipated to last up to seven days. The parties are 

directed to Judge Mueller’s default trial schedule outlined at the “standing orders” link located on 

her web page on the court’s website. 

TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REDACTION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS 

None. 

PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire questions seven days before trial. 

Each party will be limited to ten minutes of jury voir dire. 

The court directs counsel to meet and confer in an attempt to generate a joint set of 

jury instructions and verdicts. The parties shall file any such joint set of instructions fourteen 

days before trial, identified as “Jury Instructions and Verdicts Without Objection.” To the 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 10 of 15
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 

27 

28 

11

extent the parties are unable to agree on all or some instructions and verdicts, their respective 

proposed instructions are due fourteen days before trial. 

Counsel shall e-mail a copy of all proposed jury instructions and verdicts, whether 

agreed or disputed, as a word document to kjmorders@caed.uscourts.gov no later than fourteen 

days before trial; all blanks in form instructions should be completed and all brackets removed. 

Objections to proposed jury instructions must be filed seven days before trial; 

each objection shall identify the challenged instruction and shall provide a concise explanation of 

the basis for the objection along with citation of authority. When applicable, the objecting party 

shall submit an alternative proposed instruction on the issue or identify which of his or her own 

proposed instructions covers the subject. 

CONCLUSION AND OBJECTIONS TO THIS ORDER 

Each party is granted fourteen days from the date of this order to file objections to 

the same. If no objections are filed, the order will become final without further order of this 

court. 

The County’s second and eighth motions in limine are denied. 

This order resolves ECF No. 45, which is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 8, 2016 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 11 of 15
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 

27 

28 

12

ATTACHMENT A: Levy’s Witnesses 

Robert E. Levy 

Henry “Skip” Veatch 

Pamela Knorr 

Tom Sweeney 

Nancy Thornburg 

Donald Jardine 

Philllip Bennett 

Beth Nunes 

Randy Gibson 

John Crawford 

Rick Stephens 

Cami Chavez 

Kris Hartnet 

Randi Makely 

Dennis Cardoza 

Sharon Warkentin 

Valerie Bolton 

Janet Dutcher 

Martin Fine 

Terese Drabec 

Sandy King 

Betsy Platten 

Mark DeMaio 

Carolyn Vaughn 

John D. Hancock, Ph.D. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 12 of 15
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 

27 

28 

13

ATTACHMENT B: Alpine County’s Witnesses 

Philip Bennett 

Sandra Bryson 

John Crawford 

Martin Fine 

Jim Holdridge 

Donald M. Jardine 

Pamela Knorr 

Robert E. Levy 

Randi Makely 

Beth Nunes 

Brian Peters 

David A. Prentice 

Tom Sweeney 

Nancy Thornburg 

Teola Tremane 

Henry “Skip” Veatch 

Jared L. Zwickey 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 13 of 15
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 

27 

28 

14

ATTACHMENT C: Levy’s Exhibit List 

1. Any and all documents contained in Plaintiff’s Alpine County personnel file; of particular 

significance to Plaintiff’s case is the MacHold Investigation Report. 

2. The Telecommunications Analysis Report prepared by Liebert, Cassidy & Whitmore. 

3. All County-generated correspondence and memoranda regarding the Leviathan Peak and 

Hawkins Peak telecommunications projects. 

4. All notes, minutes, transcriptions, etc. from County Board proceedings which relate to 

Plaintiff’s involvement in, and work on, Alpine County’s telecommunications projects, including 

but not limited to Leviathan Peak and Hawkins Peak. 

5. All documents produced by Plaintiff in discovery and depositions, including but not 

limited to the February 21, 2012 letter from the CHP to Pamela Knorr regarding available funds 

for Leviathan Peak, numerous e-mails circulated between former County Counsel Martin Fine, 

Knorr, former Sheriff John Crawford, and Plaintiff regarding the telecommunications projects 

generally. Any and all documents contained in Plaintiff’s Alpine County personnel file, including 

the MacHold Investigation Report. 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 14 of 15
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 

27 

28 

15

ATTACHMENT D: Alpine County’s Exhibit List 

A. Alpine County Retirement Incentive Program and Voluntary Separation Program. 

B. Staff Report-Funding for the Leviathan peak Communications Project dated August 21, 

2012. 

C. Minutes of the meeting of the Board of Supervisors dated August 21, 2012. 

D. Agenda Transmittal dated November 20, 2012. 

E. Addendum Agenda of the Board of Supervisors, County of Alpine, re the meeting of 

Tuesday, November 20, 2012. 

F. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore report dated November 15, 2012. 

G. Job Description of the Undersheriff. 

Case 2:13-cv-02643-RHW-DB Document 64 Filed 06/08/16 Page 15 of 15