Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

----oo0oo----

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY

DISTRICT, a public utility

district,

NO. CIV. S 02-0238 MCE JFM

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

1442.92 ACRES OF LAND IN

ALPINE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; F.

HEISE LAND & LIVE STOCK

COMPANY, INC., a Nevada

corporation; WILLIAM WEAVER;

EDDIE R. SNYDER; AND CROCKETT

ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada

corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

On June 14, 2005, Plaintiff South Tahoe Public Utility

District (“District”) filed an Ex Parte Application for Order

Shortening Time on its Motion for Leave to Amend the Third

Amended Final Pretrial Order in this case. That application was

granted by the Court by Order dated June 15, 2005, and the

District’s Motion was set for hearing on June 20, 2005. 

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 377 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 5
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

Defendant Integrated Farms submitted extensive briefing in 1

opposition to the District’s Motion on June 17, 2005.

2

Jeffrey H. Speich appeared on behalf of the District at the time

of June 20, 2005 hearing; Integrated Farms was represented by

John V. Diepenbrock and Jeffrey L. Anderson. Following careful

consideration of the parties’ briefing , and after entertaining 1

oral argument, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s Motion, subject

to the conditions set forth below.

In requesting leave to amend the Final Pretrial Order,

counsel for the District requests permission to add Stephen

Johnson, the sole expert witness designated by the District with

respect to valuation of the property that it at issue in this

litigation, as a witness at trial. According to counsel, he

inadvertently failed to identify Mr. Johnson on the District’s

list of witnesses incorporated within the Final Pretrial Order,

despite the fact that Mr. Johnson was timely designated as an

expert witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(a)(3), despite the fact that his written report was submitted,

and despite the fact that Mr. Johnson was deposed on two

occasions by counsel for Defendant Integrated Farms.

The District argues that it would suffer extreme prejudice

if Mr. Johnson is prohibited from testifying given the fact that

the central issue remaining in this case is valuation of the

property formerly owned by Integrated Farms and taken by the

District in eminent domain proceedings. Mr. Johnson would offer

testimony on that subject.

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 377 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Integrated Farms strenuously objects to any amendment

permitting Mr. Johnson to testify on grounds of the proximity of

the currently scheduled August 10, 2005 trial date, and the fact

that the District should not under the circumstances be permitted

to deviate from the express terms of the Final Pretrial Order.

Integrated Farms correctly points out that the standards for

amendment of a final pretrial order are stringent: modification

shall be made “only to prevent manifest injustice”. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 16(e). Nonetheless a pretrial order is not “an inexorable

decree” and can, if warranted, be changed. Mechmetals Corp. v.

Telex Computer Prods., Inc., 709 F.2d 1287, 1294 (9 Cir. 1983). th

In determining whether manifest injustice may result from a

refusal to permit modification of the pretrial order, the Court

should determine the degree of prejudice to the moving party

resulting from a failure to modify, any likely prejudice to the

other side if a change is permitted, the impact of any

modification on the orderly and efficient conduct of the case,

and any wilfulness, bad faith, or inexcusable neglect on the part

of the party seeking modification. United States v. First Nat’l

Bank of Circle, 652 F.2d 882, 887 (9 Cir. 1981). th

In analyzing these factors, the Court first finds that the

potential prejudice to Plaintiff is great if it is not permitted

to present expert opinion as to valuation of the subject

property. With respect to Integrated Farms, this is not a

situation where it will be subject to “ambush” if Mr. Johnson is

permitted to testify. Mr. Johnson was timely disclosed as an

expert, his report was furnished to Integrated Farms and he was

made available for deposition not once, but twice. 

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 377 Filed 06/22/05 Page 3 of 5
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

Moreover, there is no evidence of either wilfulness or

inexcusable neglect on the part of the District; at most, the

District simply made a mistake in failing to ensure that Mr.

Johnson’s name was included on the list of trial witnesses even

though his report was clearly disclosed as a potential trial

exhibit. Finally, given the fact that Mr. Johnson’s opinion as

already been the subject of substantial discovery, the Court does

not believe that permitting his testimony will adversely effect

the conduct of these proceedings, and particularly the currently

scheduled trial date, at this juncture.

After weighing all these factors, the Court finds that the

potential prejudice to the District, if Mr. Johnson’s testimony

is disallowed, substantially outweighs the prejudice to

Integrated Farms in having to prepare for his trial testimony at

this stage of the case. Modifications of a pretrial order

should ordinarily be allowed where a refusal might result in

injustice, whereas allowance would cause no substantial injury to

the opposing party. Campbell Industries v. M/V Gemini, 619 F.2d

24, 27-28 (9 Cir. 1980). Consequently the District’s Motion is th

GRANTED.

The Court nonetheless recognizes that Integrated Farms

should not be penalized as a result of the District’s

inattention, and its need to respond to this motion. As a

condition of granting Plaintiff’s motion, the District shall

accordingly make Stephen Johnson again available for deposition,

not later than July 15, 2005. 

///

///

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 377 Filed 06/22/05 Page 4 of 5
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

As a further condition, the District shall pay all costs,

excluding attorney’s fees, associated with said deposition

provided it does not last more than one (1) day. Any costs

associated with the deposition exceeding one (1) day shall be

paid in accordance with the normal Rules of Federal Civil

Procedure. Finally, the Court’s granting of this motion is also

conditioned on payment, by the District, of all fees and costs

associated with Integrated Farms’ response to the motion. 

Counsel for Integrated Farms shall submit a declaration of all

such fees and costs to the Court for approval within ten (10)

days following the date of this Order. All properly recoverable

fees and/or costs consistent with this Order shall be paid by the

District to counsel for Integrated Farms not later than five (5)

days prior to the commencement of trial. In the event those fees

and costs are not paid as ordered, this Court’s order to allow

the testimony of Stephen Johnson will be vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 377 Filed 06/22/05 Page 5 of 5