Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01675/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01675-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

STANLEY SWENSON, an individual,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SISKIYOU COUNTY, et al. 

Defendants. 

Civ. No. 2:08-CV-1675-JAM-CMK

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER 

On, September 17, 2015, the court conducted a final pretrial conference. Mark 

Fickes appeared for the plaintiff, Stanley Swenson; Robert Chalfant and Wendy Motooka 

appeared for defendants Siskiyou County, Siskiyou County Planning Commission, Lavada 

Erickson, Frank Demarco, Bill Hoy, Marcia Armstrong, Jim Cook, Ron Stevens, Jeff Fowle, 

Chris Lazaris, and Mike McMahon. After hearing, and good cause appearing, the court makes the 

following findings and orders: 

JURISDICTION/VENUE 

 Jurisdiction is predicated on 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343 and 42 U.S.C. Section 

1983. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Section 1391. Jurisdiction and venue are not contested. 

JURY/NON-JURY 

 The parties agree that timely demand for a jury trial was made, and that twelve 

(12) jurors will be impaneled. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 1 of 47
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

UNDISPUTED FACTS 

A. A use permit (the “Use Permit”) was issued on August 3, 1966 to C. O. Palmer, 

Jr., on property owned then by Mrs. Lucille Morgan. 

 B. The real property subject to the Use Permit was subsequently acquired by Mr. 

Swenson and his wife (the “Property”) in September 1994, consisting of 14.5 acres. 

 D. Mr. Swenson and his wife subsequently conveyed a 2/3’s interest in 11.5 acres of 

the Property to others so that he and his wife currently own a 100% interest in 3 acres of the 

Property and a 1/3 interest in 11.5 acres of the Property. 

 E. The Use Permit permitted the installation and operation of an asphalt hot plant and 

the manufacture of aggregate and asphalt paving products. 

F. There has not been an asphalt hot plant on the Property since sometime in the 

1980s, including when Mr. Swenson owned the Property. 

 G. In 1995, Mr. Swenson participated in rezoning the real property to an M-M (Light 

Industrial District) zone, which was done at his request. There has been no change in the zoning 

applicable to the Property since February 14, 1995. 

H. From February 1995 to about May 2003, Rick Barnum was the County’s Planning 

Director and Wayne Virag was the County’s Assistant Planning Director. 

 I. In August 2000, Mr. Swenson submitted an application for a use permit to surface 

mine on the Property. Wayne Virag had some involvement in Mr. Swenson’s August 2000 

application for a use permit and reclamation plan approval to surface mine the real property. 

J. Mr. Virag notified Mr. Swenson that the August 2000 application was defective. 

K. In a memo to the planning department, Brian McDermott, then Director of Public 

Works, indicated that a railroad undercrossing near the Property was too narrow and unsafe to 

allow for the grant of the surfacing mining use permit. 

 L. The County of Siskiyou had a surface mine (pit) next to Mr. Swenson’s property 

for which his August 2000 application for a use permit and reclamation plan was made. 

 M. Mr. Swenson’s attorney, Darrin Mercier, wrote a letter, on December 10, 2002, 

followed by a letter on December 12, 2002 to Rick Barnum, director of the County’s Planning 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 2 of 47
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

Department, advising that his clients were moving forward with their business plan consistent 

with the 1966 Use Permit, but inquiring whether the Planning Department had any factual or legal 

basis to suggest that operation under the Use Permit would be unlawful. 

 N. Mr. Virag responded to Mercier’s December 10 and 12, 2002 letters in a letter 

dated February 13, 2003. 

O. Mr. Swenson filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Siskiyou County 

Superior Court on February 15, 2005, Case No. SCCVCV05-222 (“Siskiyou County 

Complaint”). Mr. Swenson sought judicial determination of: (1) whether the Use Permit runs with 

the land; (2) whether the Use Permit is still valid; and (3) whether the owner of the Property may 

use the Property for the uses specified in the Use Permit. Mr. Swenson filed the Siskiyou County 

Complaint before the completion of the administrative appeals to the Planning Commission and 

Board of Supervisors. 

P. After about May 2003, Mr. Virag became the County’s Planning Director until his 

employment finished. 

Q. Defendants Jeff Fowle, Ron Stevens, Mike McMahon, and Chris Lazaris were 

duly appointed Planning Commissioners who attended the meeting of the Planning Commission 

held on May 4, 2005. 

R. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing on May 4, 2005, a motion was adopted, 

upon a vote of the Commissioners, upholding Mr. Virag’s opinion contained in his letter of 

February 13, 2003. 

S. Defendant Frank DeMarco was County Counsel of the County of Siskiyou and 

defendant Don Langford was the Assistant County Counsel of the County of Siskiyou during 

2005 and the times mentioned herein. 

T. Don Langford attended the meeting of the Planning Commission of Siskiyou 

County held on May 4, 2005, at the time the hearing on the appeal of Mr. Virag’s opinion 

contained in his letter of February 13, 2003, relating to the status the Use Permit. 

U. An issue raised by Mr. Swenson, at and prior to the hearing, was whether or not 

Mr. Virag’s opinion contained in his letter of February 13, 2003, was under provisions of the 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 3 of 47
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

Siskiyou County Code, an action subject to the administrative remedies of appeal to the Planning 

Commission and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors. 

 V. The decision of the Planning Commission upholding the conclusion/opinion of 

Wayne Virag contained in his letter of February 13, 2003 was appealed to the Board of 

Supervisors. Mr. Swenson initiated that appeal under protest. 

W. The Board of Supervisors, after a public hearing, denied the appeal and upheld Mr. 

Virag’s opinion as set forth in his February 13, 2003 letter. 

X. Defendant LaVada Erickson, Marcia Armstrong, Bill Hoy, and Jim Cook were 

Supervisors of Siskiyou County, who conducted and heard Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision 

of the Planning Commission upholding the opinion of Wayne Virag contained in his letter of 

February 13, 2003. That appeal was heard on May 24, 2005. 

Y. Defendant Frank DeMarco attended the May 24, 2005 meeting of the Board of 

Supervisors of Siskiyou County at the time of the hearing on the appeal of the Planning 

Commission’s decision to uphold the opinion of Mr. Virag contained in his February 13, 2013 

letter relating to the status of the Use Permit. 

Z. An issue raised by Mr. Swenson, at and prior to the Planning Commission hearing 

and the Board of Supervisors hearing, was whether or not Mr. Virag’s opinion contained in his 

February 13, 2013 letter relating to the status of the Use Permit was, under provisions of the 

Siskiyou County Code, an action subject to the administrative remedies of appeal to the Planning 

Commission and ultimately to the Board of Supervisors, and hence, ultimately reviewable in 

court by way of a Writ for Administrative Mandamus. 

 AA. The County filed various procedural challenges to the Siskiyou County Complaint, 

alleging in part that the administrative process before the County had not been completed. Mr. 

Swenson’s claim for declaratory relief was dismissed, but he was permitted to proceed with his 

claims for Administrative Mandamus in a Second Amended Complaint. 

 BB. Plaintiff Swenson prevailed against the County in the Administrative Mandamus 

action. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 4 of 47
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

 CC. The County did not appeal the May 15, 2007 decision in the Administrative 

Mandamus action. 

DD. Brian McDermott was the Director of Public Works for the County until January 

2008. 

EE. Scott Sumner is the Director of Public Works for the County of Siskiyou and has 

been since November 2008. Prior to becoming Director of Public Works, Scott Sumner was a 

Senior Civil Engineer for Siskiyou County from May 18, 1997 through November 23, 2002, and 

Deputy Director of Public Works for Siskiyou County from November 23, 2002 through 

November 15, 2008. 

 FF. As of the present date, there has been no revocation hearing concerning the 1966 

Use Permit. 

DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES 

 The court has narrowed the list of disputed factual issues provided in the Joint 

Pretrial Conference Statement to what it believes is the list of facts actually disputed. The parties 

should meet and confer, and advise the court by the first day of the trial if the list can be further 

narrowed. 

A. Whether prior to Mr. Swenson’s acquisition of the property in 1994, it was used 

for an asphalt hot mix plant, quarry/surface mining operations, a gravel pit, and 

aggregate/concrete processing. 

B. Whether the County submitted a reclamation plan, jointly with Mr. Swenson, for 

approval to reclaim the County’s gravel pit adjacent to Swenson’s property. 

C. Whether Mr. Swenson permitted the County of Siskiyou (the “County”) to surface 

mine the Property jointly with the County’s adjacent property. 

D. Whether the County removed 4,860 tons of pit run rock from Mr. Swenson’s side 

of the property line as part of the reclamation. 

E. Whether the Department of Public Works was only concerned with the railroad 

undercrossing with respect to Swenson’s August 2000 application and not for the January 2000 

jointly proposed Reclamation Plan. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 5 of 47
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

F. Whether after Mr. Virag reviewed the August 2000 application, the County 

decided that Mr. Swenson could not obtain a use permit without completing an Environmental 

Impact Report. 

G. Whether Mr. Virag’s Letter was formal action by the Planning Department. 

H. Whether the County went forward with “staff-initiated” appeal despite the 

Plaintiff’s protest. 

I. Whether there has been the manufacture of aggregate products on the Property 

during the period of Mr. Swenson’s ownership of the Property. 

J. Whether a hearing is required when the right obtained under a Use Permit expires 

by operation of the law. 

K. Whether the Use Permit has been abandoned. 

L. Whether Plaintiff has any damages arising from lost mining operations, and if so, 

to what extent. 

M. Whether Plaintiff has any damages arising from not operating an asphalt hot plant, 

and if so, to what extent. 

N. Whether the plaintiff has established an asphalt hot plant to manufacture aggregate 

and asphalt paving products on his real property since May 15, 2007. 

O. Whether the defendants have ever filed any enforcement action against Mr. 

Swenson to prevent him from operating an asphalt hot plant to manufacture aggregate and asphalt 

paving products pursuant to the Use Permit. 

P. Whether Mr. Swenson was aware that he risks prosecution should he proceed with 

the manufacture of aggregate and asphalt paving products pursuant to the Use Permit. 

Q. Whether Swenson has ever obtained a permit or approval of a reclamation plan 

and financial assurances, as required under California Public Resources Code Section 2770(a), to 

permit him to surface mine on his property. 

R. Whether Swenson has initiated or needs to initiate a vested rights determination 

hearing, pursuant to the Surfacing Mining and Reclamation Act (“SMARA”), regarding the 1966 

Use Permit. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 6 of 47
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

S. Whether there was an impediment to Mr. Swenson’s making use of the real 

property as permitted by the Use Permit issued August 3, 1966. 

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES/MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

 Plaintiff’s Position 

 At this juncture, Mr. Swenson does not anticipate disputes concerning the 

admissibility of live and deposition testimony, or physical or demonstrative evidence. Based on 

the status of discovery, Mr. Swenson does not believe that the defendants intend to use any 

computer animation, video discs, or other high technology. Mr. Swenson is still considering 

whether to move in limine for the exclusion of the testimony of the County’s expert, Craig M. 

Enos. Mr. Swenson is also considering whether to move in limine to preclude defendants from 

making certain arguments as set forth in plaintiff’s points of law, below. 

 Defendants’ Position 

 Defendants anticipate the following evidentiary disputes, to be raised by way of 

motions in limine: 

A. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that Wayne Virag’s letter 

constitutes the revocation of a vested right. 

B. Whether testimony from experts Thomas Chapman and Angela Casler, and 

testimony regarding aggregate and asphalt sales from the contractor witnesses (Terry Smith, 

Ronald Taylor, Roger Henry, Gerard Pelletier, John McDowell, Jack Mitchell, David Baird, John 

Buick, Donald Loader, Stephen Dean, Ron Rhodes, Joe Williams, Jack DeGray, David Jackson, 

Harold Knight, and Jim Freeze) should be excluded as irrelevant, because plaintiff has never had 

a vested rights determination hearing pursuant to SMARA or County ordinances. 

C. Whether the Court should decline, under the Pullman abstention doctrine, to 

determine the validity and scope of the 1966 Use Permit. 

D. Whether the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Thomas Chapman, and the testimony 

of the contractor witnesses listed in item B, supra, should be excluded as too speculative. 

E. Whether the testimony of plaintiff’s expert Angela Casler should be excluded as 

too speculative. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 7 of 47
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

F. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that his constitutional rights 

were violated by the Planning Department’s initiation of a hearing on the use permit. 

G. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing other disputes in the 

County of Siskiyou over mining rights. 

H. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing other legal disputes he has 

had with the County of Siskiyou. 

I. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing how other mines were 

regulated in the County of Siskiyou. 

J. Whether certain testimony from William Overman, regarding the Board of 

Supervisors’ actions and the legal effect of Wayne Virag’s letter, should be excluded as lacking 

foundation and more prejudicial than probative. 

K. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from arguing that the Siskiyou County 

Superior Court order on the writ of mandate established a federal civil rights violation. 

L. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from referencing the existence of insurance 

or indemnification pertaining to any defendant. 

M. Whether plaintiff should be precluded from making arguments to the jury about 

the value of abstract constitutional rights. 

N. Exclusion of expert testimony by any expert who has not been disclosed pursuant 

to Rule 26. 

O. Exclusion of testimony, documentary evidence, or argument from plaintiff that is 

contrary to his responses to requests for admissions. 

 Pretrial Hearing on Select Motions in Limine 

 As discussed with the parties at the scheduling conference, the court will hear 

certain motions in limine on October 30, 2015, prior to trial. Those motions include those 

identified above as defendants’ motion C, F, and K, motions to determine the scope of this action 

in light of the history of the case, and the effect of missing parties, including the status of the 

defendant’s ex-wife. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 8 of 47
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

STIPULATIONS/AGREED STATEMENTS 

 None at this time. 

RELIEF SOUGHT 

A. Mr. Swenson seeks compensation for lost profits and personal salary. 

B. Mr. Swenson seeks emotional distress damages. 

C. Mr. Swenson seeks punitive damages. 

D. Mr. Swenson seeks attorneys’ fees and costs for the administrative proceedings 

and the administrative writ proceedings, and this action. 

E. Mr. Swenson seeks prejudgment interest. 

F. Defendants seek judgment in their favor and attorneys’ fees. 

POINTS OF LAW 

 The parties shall alert the court to disputes about the applicable law and legal 

standards, including the disputes referenced in the “special factual information” section of the 

parties’ joint statement that are relevant to trial. Trial briefs addressing these points more 

completely shall be filed with this court no later than seven days prior to the date of trial in 

accordance with Local Rule 285. 

 Plaintiff’s Points of Law 

A. Issue preclusion prohibits defendants from re-litigation whether Mr. Swenson has 

a vested property right in the Use Permit. 

B. Defendants are precluded from arguing that Mr. Swenson’s claims are barred by 

the statute of limitations. 

C. Defendants are not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity. 

D. Defendants are liable under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 

(1978). 

Defendant’s Points of Law 

A. Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. 

B. Plaintiff cannot claim a property interest in the right to surface mine or to 

manufacture asphalt, because the validity of the 1966 Use Permit remains uncertain. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 9 of 47
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

C. Plaintiff’s claimed damages relating to mining are too speculative to be awarded, 

because he has not yet had a vested rights determination hearing. 

D. The case may be missing required parties. 

E. Plaintiff did not mitigate his damages. 

ABANDONED ISSUES 

 Mr. Swenson has not abandoned any issues raised by the pleadings. 

WITNESSES 

 Plaintiff’s witnesses shall be those listed in Attachment A1. Defendants’ 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; 

 (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. 

 

1

 The court notes the plaintiff’s Witness List skips from #29 William Overman to #31 Joseph 

Pelletier, and assumes this reflects a clerical error and not the omission of a witness name. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 10 of 47
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

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES 

 Plaintiff’s exhibits are identified on Attachment C. At trial, plaintiff’s exhibits 

shall be listed numerically. 

 Defendant’s exhibits are identified on Attachment D2. At trial, defendant’s exhibits 

shall be listed alphabetically. 

 The court understands the parties are working to generate a joint exhibit list. The 

court encourages the parties to generate a joint exhibit list to the extent possible. If parties wish 

to submit a joint exhibit list to supersede their separate exhibit list in whole or in part, they should 

submit that by October 8, 2015. Joint Exhibits shall be identified as JX and listed numerically, 

e.g., JX-1, JX-2. 

 All exhibits must be premarked. 

 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 that the court may 

consider their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party 

demonstrates: 

 

2

 The court notes Exhibit VV on the defendants’ Exhibit List is identified as a Minute Order dated 

May 17, 2007, although it appears in a series of documents dated in 2005. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 11 of 47
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

 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 

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

at trial with the Clerk of the Court on the first day of trial. 

 Plaintiff’s Position 

A. Bill Hoy’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1). 

B. Chris Lazaris’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1). 

C. Siskiyou County’s and Siskiyou County Planning Commission’s Responses to 

Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1) 

D. Frank DeMarco’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set 

No. 1). 

 E. Jim Fowle’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 20. (Set 

No. 1). 

F. Jim Cooke’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 15, and 20. (Set No. 

1). 

G. Lavada Erickson’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 20. 

(Set No. 1). 

H. Marcia Armstrong’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set 

No. 1). 

I. Mike McMahon’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 

1). 

J. Ron Stevens’s Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 20. (Set No. 1). 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 12 of 47
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

K. Defendants’ Responses to Request for Admissions Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

29, 30, 39, 40, 55, 75, 76, 77, and 78 (Set No. 1). 

Plaintiff’s Designation of Excerpts from Depositions 

 A. David Baird: 4:6-8:19; 9:24-10:5; and 16:4-17:2. 

 B. David Jackson: 4:14-5:6; 5:15-22; 6:14-25; 10:23-11:13; 13:3-18; 15:21-24; 

18:18-19:4; 20:10-24:10; 27:9-15; 29:13-30:10; 32:2-25; 34:18-35:5. 

 C. Donald Clifton: 4:6-16; 4:20-10:2; 11:8-14:9; 16:16-17:6. 

 D. Richard Loader: 4:6-14; 5:25-9:12; 10:6-13:15; 14:18-15:7; 19:25-20:2; 23:5-

25:22. 

 E. Earl Campbell: 4:13-13:23; 14”3-7; 15:22-18:17; 18:20-19:8; 19:14-21:10; 21:3-

23:17; 29:13-30:3. 

F. Fern Campbell: 4:13-11:20. 

G. Gerard Pelletier: 4:6-10; 5:24-7:23; 8:4-9:13; 14:6-15:14; 28:8-30:21. 

H. Harold Knight: 4:6-16; 5:22-7:9; 8:16-18:6; 28:16-29:10. 

I. Jack DeGray: 4:6-14; 5:20-7:18; 7:23-8:22; 10:20-11:20; 12:6-13:24; 16:1-17:13; 

19:21-20:2; 20:6-22:17; 24:3-10; 26:4-26:23. 

J. Jack Mitchell: 4:6-16; 5:21-7:25; 9:8-11:2; 13:6-15:7; 19:3-22; 37:12-24. 

K. Joe Williams: 5:9-18; 5:24-6:8; 7:4-12; 8:7-12; 10:21-11:14; 20:3-23; 24:5-28:21. 

L. John Buick: 5:9-21; 6:1-25; 17:8-20:20. 

M. John McDowell: 4:6-8:8; 9:7-10:5; 11:10-13:5; 13:14-17:8. 

N. Ron Rhodes: 4:6-13; 5:9-21; 6:3-7:5; 7:20-9:24; 11:23- 12:16; 16:5-10; 16:23-

17:13; 21:5-22:18; 24:16-29:24. 

O. Ronald Taylor: 4:7-6:11; 7:5-9:11; 12:8-20; 15:24-16:13; 19:26-20:10; 27:23-

29:19. 

P. Stephen Dean: 4:6-8:3; 8:21-10:12. 

Q. William Overman: 6:7-13; 7:24-15:6; 16:13-21:17. 

R. Roger Henry: 4:4-5:3; 7:18-8:18; 14:6-22; 31:4-32:24; 34:15-35:22. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 13 of 47
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

Defendant’s Position 

 Stanley Swenson’s Response to Request for Admissions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 19, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48. 

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS 

 With the possible exception of motions in limine, no other motions are 

contemplated at this time. 

AMENDMENTS/DISMISSALS 

 None at this time. 

SETTLEMENT 

 The parties participated in a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Dale 

A. Drozd on June 9, 2014. Since the first settlement conference, the court has denied the 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the defendants have new counsel. The court 

therefore orders the parties to a second settlement conference. 

 A settlement conference is scheduled before Judge Drozd for November 5, 2015

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 27, 8th Floor. The parties have waived conflict to the assigned 

magistrate judge. 

 The parties are directed to submit their confidential settlement conference 

statements to the Court using the following email address: dadorders@caed.uscourts.gov. 

Statements are due at least 7 days prior to the Settlement Conference. Such statements are neither 

to be filed with the clerk nor served on opposing counsel. However, each party shall e-file a one 

page document entitled Notice of Submission of Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

The parties may agree, or not, to serve each other with the settlement statements. Each party is 

reminded of the requirement that it be represented in person at the settlement conference by a 

person able to dispose of the case or fully authorized to settle the matter at the settlement 

conference on any terms. See Local Rule 270. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 14 of 47
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

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

 The parties have agreed to the following joint statement of the case: 

Mr. Swenson and the County of Siskiyou dispute the applicability of 

certain land use restrictions to Mr. Swenson’s real property in Siskiyou 

County, and their impact on his ability to surface mine and manufacture 

asphalt on his property. Mr. Swenson alleges that the County of Siskiyou 

and several of its employees violated his federal constitutional rights 

during the litigation. He now sues the County and several County 

employees for monetary damages. 

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS 

 Because so much of this case depends on the interpretation of documents, 

presentation of all or part of the action upon an agreed statement of facts is not advisable because, 

in most if not all instances, the parties’ interpretation of arguably undisputed facts would require 

thorough examination of the witnesses who prepared and received the largely undisputed 

documents. 

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES 

 None. 

IMPARTIAL EXPERTS/LIMITATION OF EXPERTS 

 None. 

ATTORNEYS' FEES 

 As set forth in Section 7, above, Mr. Swenson seeks attorneys’ fees as permitted 

by law. Mr. Swenson will file a motion no later than 28 days after entry of the final judgment as 

set forth in Local Rule 293. 

 Defendants also will seek attorneys’ fees, as permitted by law. 

TRIAL EXHIBITS 

 No special handling is required. 

The court will not retain certified copies of exhibits as set forth in Local Rule 

138(j) in the event of an appeal. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 15 of 47
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 

16

TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER 

 The parties do not seek a protective order for civil trial under Local Rule 

141.1(b)(2). 

ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL/TRIAL DATE 

 This jury trial is on standby for November 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 

Three before the Honorable Kimberly J. Mueller. The parties have agreed to trail the case 

currently scheduled for that date. The parties will be notified by one week prior to the standby 

date whether the case will proceed on November 16, 2015. The trial is anticipated to last fourteen 

(14) days. The parties are directed to Judge Mueller’s default trial schedule outlined on her web 

page on the court’s website. 

PROPOSED JURY VOIR DIRE AND PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

 The parties shall file any proposed jury voir dire 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 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. 

TRIAL BRIEFS 

 Trial briefs are due seven days before trial on November 9, 2015. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 16 of 47
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 

17

OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: September 28, 2015. 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 17 of 47
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 

18

ATTACHMENT A: Plaintiff’s Witnesses 

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS LIST 

1. Marcia Armstrong. Ms. Armstrong can be reached through counsel for the 

defendants. Ms. Armstrong is a defendant and her testimony will be centered on her actions as a 

member of the Board of Supervisors. She will testify concerning: (1) her conduct before, during, 

and after Board of Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the 

Planning Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s 

decision related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which she contributed to the 

deprivation of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights. 

2. David Baird. Mr. Baird’s address is 240 Cricket Road, Mt. Shasta, California 

96067. Mr. Baird is a local contractor and land developer. He purchased gravel for his 

subdivision and will testify that he would have purchased gravel from Mr. Swenson, had Mr. 

Swenson been allowed to manufacture aggregate. 

3. John Buick. Mr. Buick’s address is 9831 Cow Creek Drive, Palo Cedro, 

California 96073. Mr. Buick is a local contractor who contracts with the U.S. Forest Service. He 

purchased gravel for this and will testify that he would have purchased gravel from Mr. Swenson, 

had Mr. Swenson been allowed to manufacture aggregate. 

4. Earl Campbell. Mr. Campbell’s address is 2045 S. 19th Street, Coos Bay, Oregon 

97420. Mr. Campbell was a former owner of the gravel pit located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in 

the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel pit at issue in this case. Mr. Campbell will testify about 

the history of the pit and its uses during the tenure of his ownership. 

5. Fern Campbell. Mrs. Campbell’s address is Mr. Campbell’s address is 2045 S. 

19th Street, Coos Bay, Oregon 97420. Mrs. Campbell was a former owner of the gravel pit 

located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel pit at issue in this 

case. Mr. Campbell will testify about the history of the pit and its uses during the tenure of his 

ownership. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 18 of 47
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 

19

6. Angela Caster. Ms. Caster may be reached through counsel for Mr. Swenson. She 

is a designated expert who will testify to issues related to Mr. Swenson’s damages. 

7. Thomas Chapman. Mr. Chapman may be reached through counsel for Mr. 

Swenson. He is a designated expert who will testify to issues related to Mr. Swenson’s damages. 

8. Donald Clifton. Mr. Clifton’s address is 106 Rancho Maderas Way in Henderson, 

Nevada 89002. Mr. Clifton was a previous owner/operator of the gravel pit located at 2700 N. 

Old Stage Road, in the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel pit at issue in this case. He will 

testify about the historical use of the property and the amount of gravel sales he made during his 

ownership. Mr. Clifton was owner/operator of the pit when Siskiyou County issued the 1966 use 

permit at issue in this case. He installed the asphalt hot mix plant and operated it on the property 

for approximately 15 years. 

9. Jim Cook. Mr. Cook can be reached through counsel for defendants. Mr. Cook is 

a defendant and his testimony will be centered on her actions as a member of the Board of 

Supervisors. He will testify concerning: (1) his conduct before, during, and after Board of 

Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the Planning 

Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s decision 

related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which he contributed to the deprivation 

of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights. 

10. Tony Cruse. Mr. Cruse’s address is 886 Fitch Road, Alturas, California 96101. 

Mr. Cruse is a paving contractor and asphalt hot mix operator who will testify about gravel 

purchases, asphalt hot mix plants, and his desire to locate an asphalt hot mix plant on the gravel 

pit located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the pit at issue in this case. 

11. Stephen Dean. Mr. Dean’s address is 16335 North Street, Redding, California 

96001. Mr. Dean is a California Licensed Land Surveyor. He surveyed Mr. Swenson’s gravel pit 

and will testify about the results of his survey. 

12. Jack DeGray. Mr. DeGray’s address is 1633 Davis Place Road, Mt. Shasta, 

California 96067. Mr. DeGray is a local paving contractor who will testify about gravel and 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 19 of 47
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 

20

asphalt hot mix purchases he made. He will also testify that he would have purchased materials 

from Mr. Swenson had the defendants allowed Mr. Swenson to operate his gravel pit. 

13. Frank DeMarco. Mr. DeMarco can be reached through counsel for defendants. 

Mr. DeMarco was County Counsel before, during and after the appeals hearing of May 24, 2005. 

He will testify about his role in the County’s mistreatment of Mr. Swenson including the manner 

in which the Board of Supervisor’s conducted the appeal of the Planning Commission. 

14. Lavada Erickson. Ms. Erickson can be reached through counsel for defendants. 

Ms. Erickson is a defendant and her testimony will be centered on her actions as a member of the 

Board of Supervisors. She will testify concerning: (1) her conduct before, during, and after Board 

of Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the Planning 

Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s decision 

related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which she contributed to the deprivation 

of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights. 

15. Jeff Fowle. Mr. Fowle can be reached through counsel for defendants. Mr. Fowle 

was a member of the Siskiyou County Planning Commission during the events at issue in this 

case. He will testify about his actions before, during and after the Siskiyou County Planning 

Commission Hearing held on May 4, 2005, and related to Mr. Swenson, including the decision to 

conduct an appeal against Mr. Swenson’s wishes. Mr. Fowle will testify about Siskiyou County 

Ordinances and the appeals process. 

16. Jim Freeze. Mr. Freeze’s address is P.O. Box 1231, Yreka, California, 96097. Mr. 

Freeze is a local paving contractor. He will testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for 

his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the 

County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt products. 

17. David Gravenkamp. Mr. Gravenkamp’s address is 505 North Street, Yreka, 

California 96097. Mr. Gravenkamp was the Siskiyou County Public Works Director. He will 

testify about the Siskiyou County Gravel Pit located on Pine Grove Dr. in the Mt. Shasta area, 

which is adjacent to Mr. Swenson’s pit. He will also testify about the Siskiyou County Public 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 20 of 47
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 

21

Works Department’s involvement in the handling of the Mr. Swenson’s use permit and 

reclamation plan application. 

18. Roger Henry. Mr. Henry’s address is 2600 Ely Lane, Redding, California 96001. 

Mr. Henry is a local paving contractor, estimator, and project manager. He will testify about 

gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have 

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the defendants allowed Mr. Swenson to manufacture 

aggregate and asphalt products. 

19. Bill Hoy. Mr. Hoy can be reached through counsel for defendants. Mr. Hoy is a 

defendant and his testimony will be centered on his actions as a member of the Board of 

Supervisors. He will testify concerning: (1) his conduct before, during, and after Board of 

Supervisor’s meetings relating to Mr. Swenson’s appeal of the decision of the Planning 

Commission; (2) the evidence purportedly considered by the Board; (3) the Board’s decision 

related to Mr. Swenson’s property; and (4) the manner in which he contributed to the deprivation 

of Mr. Swenson’s constitutional rights. 

20. David Jackson. Mr. Jackson’s address is 704 Aiello Lane, Mt. Shasta, California 

96067. Mr. Jackson is a local contractor. He will testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix 

purchases for his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from Mr. 

Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt products. 

21. Harold Knight. Mr. Knight’s address is 1829 Wyehka Way, Mt. Shasta, 

California 96067. Harold Knight is a partner in the property located at 2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in 

the Mt. Shasta Area, which is the gravel at issue in this case. He will testify about his involvement 

with the gravel pit. He is also a local building contractor and he will testify about gravel and 

asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have purchased 

materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate 

and asphalt products. 

22. Donald Langford. 311 Fourth Street, Yreka, California 96097. Mr. Langford was 

a member of the Siskiyou County Counsel’s Office. He was present at the Siskiyou County 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 21 of 47
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 

22

Planning Commission appeals hearing that was held on May 4, 2005, and will testify about his 

involvement before, during and after the appeals hearing. 

23. Chris Lazaris. Mr. Lazaris’s address is 183 South Dewitt Way, Yreka, California 

96097. Chris Lazaris was a Siskiyou County Planning Commissioner for a number of years. He 

will testify about his actions before, during and after the Siskiyou County Planning Commission 

Hearing held on May 4, 2005, regarding Mr. Swenson’s gravel pit. He has knowledge of the 

Siskiyou County Ordinances and appeals process and he will testify about them. 

24. Donald Richard Loader, Jr. Mr. Loader’s address is 242 Dietz Road, Mt. 

Shasta, California, 96067. Mr. Loader is a local contractor. Donald Richard Loader, Jr. will 

testify gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have 

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture 

aggregate and asphalt products. 

25. Brian McDermott. Mr. McDermott’s address is 1508 Timberhills Road, Mr. 

Shasta, California 96067. He has held three positions in the Siskiyou County Government, 

including serving as: (1) Assistant Public Works Director; (2) Public Works Director; and (3) 

Siskiyou County Administrator. Mr. McDermott will testify about his knowledge of Siskiyou 

County’s actions leading up to and including the Board of Supervisors’ appeal hearing held on 

May 24, 2005. 

26. John McDowell. Mr. McDowell’s address is 3005 Cantara Road, Mt. Shasta, 

California 96067. Mr. McDowell is a partner in the ownership of the real property located at 

2700 N. Old Stage Rd., in the Mt. Shasta area. He will testify about the investment he made in the 

property and the fact that he was not and will not be involved in the operation of the gravel pit 

mining project. 

27. Mike McMahon. Mr. McMahon can be reached through counsel for defendants. 

He is a defendant in this action. Mr. McMahon is and was a Siskiyou County Planning 

Commissioner for a number of years. He will testify about his actions before, during and after the 

Siskiyou County Planning Commission Hearing held on May 4, 2005, regarding Mr. Swenson’s 

gravel pit. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 22 of 47
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 

23

28. Jack Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell’s address is 29337 Riverside Road, Castella, 

California 96017 & P.O. Box 172, Castella, California 96017. Jack Mitchell is a local paving & 

excavation contractor. Jack Mitchell will testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for 

his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the 

County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt products. 

29. William Overman. Mr. Overman is deceased but his deposition testimony will be 

presented to the jury. Mr. Overman was a member of the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors 

during the appeals hearing, which was heard on May 24, 2005, related to Mr. Swenson’s gravel 

pit. He will testify about the Board’s actions before, during and after the hearing. He voted to 

overturn the Siskiyou County Planning Commission’s Appeal. 

30. Gerard Joseph Pelletier. Mr. Pelletier’s address is 711 Woodland Park Drive, Mt. 

Shasta, California, 96067. He is a local excavation contractor. Mr. Pelletier will testify about 

gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have 

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture 

aggregate and asphalt products. He will also testify about his reluctance to participate in this 

litigation because he does business with Siskiyou County and he hears that the County will 

retaliate against him if he assists Mr. Swenson in this case. 

31. Greg Plucker. Mr. Plucker can be reached through the Siskiyou County Planning 

Department. Mr. Plucker was the Assistant Siskiyou County Planning Director and he has now 

been promoted to the position of Siskiyou County Planning Director. He will testify about the 

contents of a declaration he submitted in support of the defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. He has knowledge of the application for a business license that he approved to allow an 

asphalt hot mix plant to be installed on Mr. Swenson’s property. Mr. Plucker will also testify 

about Siskiyou County Zoning Ordinances, the requirements and validity of the 1966 use permit, 

the vested mine determination process that he has developed for Siskiyou County, and the process 

for handling vested property rights. 

32. Philip Price. Mr. Price’s address is 466 Vallombrosa Avenue, Chico, California 

95927. Mr. Price was outside Counsel under contract with Siskiyou County to handle legal 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 23 of 47
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 

24

actions. He was brought on board when Plaintiff Stanley Swenson, through his attorney, filed the 

Declaratory Relief Action in Siskiyou Superior Court. In response to the Declaratory Relief, 

Philip Price filed and successfully demurred the action to a Writ of Mandamus. Mr. Price 

counselled the Siskiyou County Planning Staff and Commission during the appeals hearing that 

was held on May 4, 2005. 

33. Ron Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes’s address is 2200 Mott Airport Road, Mt. Shasta, 

California 96067. Mr. Rhodes is a local paving & excavation contractor. Ron Rhodes will testify 

about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have 

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture 

aggregate and asphalt products. 

34. Dr. Richard Shearer. Dr. Shearer’s address is 701 Pine Street, Mt. Shasta, 

California 96067. Dr. Richard Shearer is personal physician of Stanley Swenson. He will testify 

about his personal observations of Mr. Swenson’s mental anguish and medical problems 

following his interactions with Siskiyou County officials. 

35. Terry Smith. Mr. Smith’s address is 11725 Old Highway 99 S, Grenada, 

California 96038. Mr. Smith is a local paving & excavation contractor. Terry Smith will testify 

about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have 

purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture 

aggregate and asphalt products. 

36. Ron Stevens. Mr. Stevens is a defendant in this action and can be reached through 

counsel for defendants. Mr. Stevens was a Siskiyou County Planning Commissioner for a number 

of years. He will testify about his actions before, during and after the Siskiyou County Planning 

Commission Hearing held on May 4, 2005, regarding Mr. Swenson’s gravel pit. Mr. Stevens has 

knowledge of the Siskiyou County ordinances and appeals process and he will testify about them. 

37. Stanley Swenson. Mr. Swenson can be reached through his counsel. He will 

testify about the events and circumstances giving rise to this lawsuit including the manner in 

which the defendants violated his constitutional rights. 

///// 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 24 of 47
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 

25

38. Ronald Taylor. Mr. Taylor’s address is 58 East Yolo Street, Orland, California 

95963. Ronald Taylor was a local contractor. Ronald Taylor will testify about gravel and asphalt 

hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would have purchased materials from 

Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to manufacture aggregate and asphalt 

products. 

39. Wayne Virag. Mr. Virag’s address is 4536 Rainbow Drive, Weed, California 

96094. Mr. Virag held two positions in the Siskiyou County Government. He was the Siskiyou 

County Assistant Planning Director under Richard Barnum, who is deceased. Mr. Virag will 

testify about his role in the prolonged debate about the status of the 1966 use permit. He will also 

testify as to his involvement before, during and after the appeals hearings. 

40. Joe Williams. Mr. Williams’s address is 7157 Pit Road, Redding, California 

96001. Mr. Williams is an estimator for a paving and excavation contractor. Joe Williams will 

testify about gravel and asphalt hot mix purchases for his contracting business and how he would 

have purchased materials from Mr. Swenson had the County permitted Mr. Swenson to 

manufacture aggregate and asphalt products. 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 25 of 47
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 

26

ATTACHMENT B: Defendant’s Witnesses 

DEFENDANT’S WITNESS LIST 

1. Ron Stevens, Former Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. 

Stevens will testify as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving 

plaintiff and the 1966 Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and 

documentary evidence presented to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a 

Use Permit with Reclamation Plans, and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad 

undercrossing; (5) the role and function of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and 

processes for setting and hearing matters before the Planning Commission. 

2. Jeff Fowle, Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. Fowle will testify 

as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving plaintiff and the 1966 

Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and documentary evidence presented 

to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a Use Permit with Reclamation Plans, 

and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (5) the role and function 

of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and processes for setting and hearing matters 

before the Planning Commission. 

3. Chris Lazaris, Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. Lazaris will 

testify as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving plaintiff and the 

1966 Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and documentary evidence 

presented to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a Use Permit with 

Reclamation Plans, and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (5) 

the role and function of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and processes for 

setting and hearing matters before the Planning Commission. 

4. Mike McMahon, Planning Commissioner, County of Siskiyou. Mr. McMahon 

will testify as to: (1) all occurrences during Planning Commission meetings involving plaintiff 

and the 1966 Use Permit; (2) the opinion letter by Wayne Virag; (3) oral and documentary 

evidence presented to the Planning Commission; (4) plaintiff’s applications for a Use Permit with 

Reclamation Plans, and related issues with a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (5) 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 26 of 47
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 

27

the role and function of the Planning Commission; and (6) the procedures and processes for 

setting and hearing matters before the Planning Commission. 

5. Bill Hoy, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou. 

Mr. Hoy will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff and his appeal 

of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence submitted to and 

relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4) correspondence 

and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and others; (5) the 

procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of Supervisors; (6) his 

involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors, and (7) his involvement 

with Stanley Swenson. 

6. Marcia Armstrong, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of 

Siskiyou. Ms. Armstrong will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff 

and his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence 

submitted to and relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4) 

correspondence and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and 

others; (5) the procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of 

Supervisors; (6) her involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors; and (7) 

his involvement with Stanley Swenson. 

7. Jim Cook, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou. 

Mr. Cook will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff and his appeal 

of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence submitted to and 

relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4) correspondence 

and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and others; (5) the 

procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of Supervisors; (6) his 

involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors; and (7) his involvement 

with Stanley Swenson. 

8. LaVada Erickson, Former Member of the Board of Supervisors, County of 

Siskiyou. Ms. Erickson will testify as to: (1) Board of Supervisors meetings relating to plaintiff 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 27 of 47
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 

28

and his appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; (2) oral and documentary evidence 

submitted to and relied upon by the Board; (3) the determination by the Board of Supervisors; (4) 

correspondence and communications with Wayne Virag, Darrin Mercier, Stan Swenson and 

others; (5) the procedures and processes for setting and hearing issues before the Board of 

Supervisors; (6) her involvement with Swenson’s appeal before the Board of Supervisors; and her 

involvement with Stanley Swenson.

9. Frank DeMarco, Former County Counsel, County of Siskiyou. Mr. DeMarco 

will testify as to: (1) his knowledge of plaintiff’s appeal to the Planning Commission and Board 

of Supervisors regarding Wayne Virag’s opinion letter concerning plaintiff’s rights under a 1966 

Use Permit; (2) plaintiff’s attempted declaratory relief action and writ of mandamus in Siskiyou 

County Superior Court; (3) the absence of any enforcement action taken against plaintiff 

regarding the 1966 Use Permit; (4) his advice to the Planning Commission and Board of 

Supervisors; (5) his communications with Stan Swenson; (6) Siskiyou County Codes, including 

Article 14 (“Expiration, Revocation and Appeals of Permits and Variances”) containing Sections 

10-6.1401 through 10-6.1405; (7) Article 25 (“Nonconforming Land, Buildings, and Uses”) 

containing Sections 10-6.2501 through 10-6.2505; (8) Article 46 (“Light Industrial District MM”) containing Sections 10-6.4601 through 10-6.4603; (9) Article 48 (“Rural Residential 

Agricultural District”) containing Sections 10-6.4801 through 10-6.4803; (10) the files of the 

Siskiyou County Department of Public Works and Planning Department relating to an application 

for a Use Permit in 2002 by Stan Swenson; (11) related issues regarding a North Old Stage Road 

Railroad undercrossing. 

10. Don Langford, Former Assistant County Counsel, County of Siskiyou. Mr. 

Langford will testify as to: (1) his knowledge of plaintiff’s appeal to the Planning Commission 

and Board of Supervisors regarding Wayne Virag’s opinion letter concern plaintiff’s rights under 

a 1966 Use Permit; (2) plaintiff’s attempted declaratory relief action and writ of mandamus in 

Siskiyou County Superior Court; (3) the absence of any enforcement action taken against plaintiff 

regarding the 1966 Use Permit; (4) his advice to the Planning Commission and Board of 

Supervisors; (5) his communications with Stan Swenson; (6) Siskiyou County Codes, including 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 28 of 47
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 

29

Article 14 (“Expiration, Revocation and Appeals of Permits and Variances”) containing Sections 

10-6.1401 through 10-6.1405; (7) Article 25 (“Nonconforming Land, Buildings, and Uses”) 

containing Sections 10-6.2501 through 10-6.2505; (8) Article 46 (“Light Industrial District MM”) containing Sections 10-6.4601 through 10-6.4603; (9) Article 48 (“Rural Residential 

Agricultural District”) containing Sections 10-6.4801 through 10-6.4803; (10) the files of the 

Siskiyou County Department of Public Works and Planning Department relating to an application 

for a Use Permit in 2002 by Stan Swenson; (11) related issues regarding a North Old Stage Road 

Railroad undercrossing. 

11. Wayne Virag, Former Assistant Planning Director in the Planning 

Department, County of Siskiyou. Mr. Virag will testify as to: (1) plaintiff’s Application for a 

Use Permit in 2000; (2) submission of a Reclamation Plan in 2000; (3) his opinions regarding 

plaintiff’s right under a 1966 Use Permit contained in his letter dated 2/13/03; (4) correspondence 

from plaintiff’s attorney, Darrin Mercier, requesting such opinion; (5) the appeal of that opinion 

to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; (6) plaintiff’s writ and attempted 

declaratory relief action in Siskiyou County Superior Court; (7) the absence of any enforcement 

action regarding the Use Permit; (8) the application by plaintiff for a Use Permit in 2000 with a 

Reclamation Plan; (9) issues regarding a North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (10) 

State and County rules and regulations regarding land use issues and SMARA issues (11) his role 

and duties as Assistant Planning Director and Director of the Planning Commission.

12. Darrin Mercier, Former Attorney for Plaintiff. Mr. Mercier will testify as to: 

(1) his correspondence and communications with the Planning Department requesting opinions; 

(2) the appeals of Wayne Virag’s opinion letter to the Planning Department and Board of 

Supervisors; (3) plaintiff’s failed declaratory relief action and writ of mandamus; (4) the absence 

of any enforcement action against plaintiff.

13. Phil Price, Attorney for The County of Siskiyou. Mr. Price will testify as to his 

representation of the County during plaintiff’s appeals before the Planning Department, and the 

failed effort for declaratory relief and administrative mandamus action in Siskiyou County 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 29 of 47
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 

30

Superior Court. Mr. Price will also testify as to the processes and procedures for hearings, and 

correspondence with Darrin Mercier regarding Plaintiff’s property.

14. Brian McDermott, Former Assistant Director of Public Works and Former 

Director of Public Works, County of Siskiyou. Mr. McDermott will testify as to: (1) the 

application by plaintiff for a Use Permit with Reclamation Plans; (2) issues with the North Old 

Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (3) related traffic and engineering studies and cost estimates; 

(4) communications with plaintiff, Union Pacific Railroad, the California Public Utilities 

Commission, the California Department of Transportation and others. 

15. David Gravenkamp, Former Public Works Director, County of Siskiyou.

Mr. Gravenkamp will testify as to his involvement with the subject property and Mr. Swenson. 

He will also testify as to various use permits and reclamations plans submitted, and action taken 

by the County. Mr. Gravenkamp will also testify as to his knowledge of the property and history 

of the property during relevant time periods. 

16. Harry Krause, Former Engineer, Department of Public Works, County of 

Siskiyou. Mr. Krause will testify as to: (1) the application by plaintiff for a Use Permit with 

Reclamation Plans; (2) issues with the North Old Stage Road Railroad undercrossing; (3) related 

traffic and engineering studies and cost estimates; (4) communications with plaintiff, Union 

Pacific Railroad, the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Department of 

Transportation and others. 

17. Scott Sumner, Former Director and Deputy Director of Public Works, 

County of Siskiyou. Mr. Sumner will testify as to his involvement with the subject property and 

Mr. Swenson, including Swenson and the County’s joint reclamation plan. 

18. Greg Plucker, Community Director and Former Deputy Director of Planning, 

County of Siskiyou. Mr. Plucker will testify as to the records of Siskiyou County relating to 

plaintiff’s property and the property history. He will also testify as to plaintiff’s application for a 

business license in 2010. 

19. Todd Lamanna, Former Director of Public Works, County of Siskiyou. Mr. 

Lamanna will testify as to: (1) the historical and current price of aggregate and asphalt, and costs 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 30 of 47
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 

31

associated therewith; (2) weights and quantities; (3) the shipping of asphalt and aggregate; (4) the 

grades and kinds of aggregate used in asphalt; (5) government regulations relating to grades of 

aggregate and their uses; ;(6) the amounts, grades and sources of aggregate used by Siskiyou 

County; (7) the grade and limited amount of aggregate remaining in Swenson’s pit. 

20. Terry Barber. Ms. Barber will testify as to the processes and procedures for 

obtaining the right to surface mine in Siskiyou County under SMARA and County of Siskiyou 

rules and regulations. 

21. Jim Freeze, Westcoast Paving and Chip Sealing. Mr. Freeze will testify as to: 

(1) the historical and current price of aggregate and asphalt; (2) costs associated therewith; (3) 

weights and qualities thereof; (4) the grades and kinds of aggregate used in asphalt; (5) 

government regulations relating to grades of aggregate and their uses; (6) the amounts, grades and 

sources of aggregate used in Siskiyou County; (7) the grade and limited amount of aggregate 

remaining in Swenson’s pit; and (8) The asphalt/aggregate business between 2000 to the present 

in Siskiyou County 

22. Andy Lanizer, Knife River Construction. Mr. Lanizer will testify as to: (1) the 

historical and current price of aggregate and asphalt, and costs associated therewith; (2) weights 

and quantities; (3) the shipping of asphalt and aggregate; (4) the grades and kinds of aggregate 

used in asphalt; (5) government regulations relating to grades of aggregate and their uses; (6) the 

amounts, grades and sources of aggregate used by Siskiyou County; (7) the grade and limited 

amount of aggregate remaining in Swenson’s pit. 

23. Earl Campbell, Coos Bay, Oregon. Mr. Campbell will testify as to: (1) the 

property history of plaintiff’s real property; (2) cessation of surface mining; (3) past reclamation 

plans and efforts. 

24. Fern Campbell, Coos Bay, Oregon. Ms. Campbell will testify as to: (1) the 

property history of plaintiff’s real property; (2) cessation of surface mining; (3) past reclamation 

plans and efforts. 

25. Donald Clifton, Redding, California. Mr. Clifton will testify as to: (1) 

information relating to the history of plaintiff’s real property, the uses of said property and the 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 31 of 47
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 

32

property’s prior owners and operators, including uses under the 1966 Use Permit; (2) the 

cessation of use and removal of an asphalt hot plant; (3) cessation of mining and reasons therefor; 

(4) the pit’s limited supply of mineable aggregate; (5) the pit’s reclamation and closure, and 

return of the financial assurance by Siskiyou County. 

26. John Buick. Mr. Buick will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Buick will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

27. Jack Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Mitchell will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

28. Gerald Pelletier. Mr. Pelletier will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Pelletier will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

29. David Baird. Mr. Baird will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Baird will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

30. Joe Williams. Mr. Williams will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Williams will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

31. Ron Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Rhodes will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

32. John McDowell, One-Third Owner of Pit. Mr. McDowell will testify as to his 

one-third ownership of the pit, and aggregate/asphalt purchases that he speculates he would have 

bought from Swenson, and his agreement to recover 10% of suit. 

33. Jack DeGray. Mr. DeGray will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. DeGray will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 32 of 47
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 

33

34. Roger Henry. Mr. Henry will testify as to purchases of base rock and asphalt 

between 2000 and 2013. Mr. Henry will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

35. Terry Smith. Mr. Smith will testify as to his purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Smith will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

36. David Baird. Mr. Baird will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Baird will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

37. Don Loader. Mr. Loader will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Loader will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business. 

38. David Jackson. Mr. Jackson will testify as to purchases of aggregate and asphalt 

between 2000 to 2013. Mr. Jackson will also testify as to economic conditions involving the 

aggregate and asphalt industry in Siskiyou County and the competitiveness of the business.

39. Stephen Dean. Mr. Dean is a Professional Land Surveyor and will testify as to his 

creation of a topographical map he provided to plaintiff in connection with a proposed 

reclamation plan.

40. Harold Knight. Mr. Knight will testify as to his one-third ownership interest in 

the property, his planned uses for the property, the permit and reclamation history of the property, 

the re-zoning of the property, and the historical uses of the property. 

41. Tony Cruse. Mr. Cruse will testify as to his business dealings with plaintiff, as 

well as the alleged or proposed placement of an asphalt hot plant on plaintiff’s property and 

payment of a royalty for said placement.

42. Paul Boerger. Mr. Boerger will testify as to discussions with plaintiff as to 

opening an asphalt hot plant on the property.

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 33 of 47
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 

34

43. David Gallo, Ph.D. Economist. Mr. Gallo will testify as to the expert opinions he 

has reached in this matter, and that he previously disclosed in his expert reports as well as at 

deposition.

44. Craig Enos. Mr. Enos will testify as to the expert opinions he has reached in this 

matter, and that he has previously disclosed in his expert reports as well as at deposition. 

45. Stanley Swenson. The facts underlying his claims and his claim for damages.

 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 34 of 47
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 

35

ATTACHMENT C: Plaintiff’s Exhibits 

PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT LIST

ID Date Document Description 

1 8/3/66 Siskiyou County Planning Commission Permit Application 

2 3/31/86 Letter From Robert Sellman (Planning Director) to Earl Campbell cc: 

Gene Fink, supervisor Phil Mattos re meeting 

3 8/29/86 Letter From Robert Sellman (Planning Director) to Earl Campbell cc: 

Gene Fink, supervisor Phil Mattos re Reclamation Plan 

4 9/22/86 Letter From Robert Sellman to Lela Clifton re: Reclamation Plan 

Application incomplete 

5 04/1987 Reclamation Plan Supplementary Statements for Lela Clifton; 

Clifton/Campbell Ready-Mix Gravel Pit 

6 5/4/87 Notarized Certificate for Lela Clifton (9/8/86), 1280 Wagstaff Rd., 

Paradise, CA 95569 re Suggested Model Reclamation Plan 

7 6/3/87 Siskiyou County Planning Commission Regular Meeting re: 

Reclamation Plan – Lela Clifton For Campbell Ready Mix 

8 5/4/88 Letter From Robert Sellman to Campbell Ready Mix File re: On-Site 

Review of Reclamation Plan 

9 9/22/88 Letter From Donald E. Clifton to Robert Sellman re: Reclamation 

Plan 

10 6/25/91 Agreement between Siskiyou County and Earl L. Campbell 

11 9/9/91 Letter From Earl Campbell to Dept. of Conservation re: ceasing 

operations 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 35 of 47
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 

36

ID Date Document Description 

12 9/17/91 Letter From Dennis O’Bryant to Earl Campbell re: Not required to 

file annual report 

13 10/26/93 Siskiyou Planning Department Request for Release of Campbell 

ready Mix Reclamation Plan (Approved) 

14 3/1/94 Rezoning Petition 

15 06/1994 Siskiyou County Codes – Article 46. Light Industrial District 

16 7/6/94 Siskiyou County Meeting – Negative Declaration/Zone Change 

17 2/14/95 Ordinance adopted – zone change as petitioned by Earl and Fern 

Campbell (w/ Grant Deed attached) 

18 09/1995 Ordinance of Siskiyou County reclassifying certain properties 

19 4/3/96 Memo From Harry to Dave, Brian & Scott re: Mt. Shasta Gravel Pit – 

Conflicting Boundary with Swenson 

20 05/1999 Surface Mining and Reclamation Ordinances for Siskiyou County 

21 1/10/00 Siskiyou County Reclamation Plan – Mount Shasta Pit 

22 1/17/00 “Can the State of California ‘Declare’ The Rivers of Siskiyou County 

as ‘Navigable’?” 

23 1/21/00 Application Review of Reclamation Plan 

24 1/26/00 Letter From Larry Evans to Doug Libby re: Siskiyou County/Stanley 

R. and Therese M. Swenson Reclamation Plan 

25 4/25/00 Scott Timber Co. financial documents 

26 3/2/00 Less Than 3 Acre Conversion Exemption for 305 butte Street 

27 3/27/00 Logging Contract 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 36 of 47
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 

37

ID Date Document Description 

28 4/23/00 Mt. Shasta Sand & Gravel Quarry Reclamation Plan 

29 8/28/00 Use Permit for Stan Swenson and Mark Teague 

30 9/1/00 County of Siskiyou Business License Application for Swenson Hot 

Mix Asphalt Plant 

31 9/5/00 Staff Review From Wayne Virag to Siskiyou County Reviewing 

Agencies re: Stan and Therese Swenson Use Permit and Reclamation 

Plan 

32 9/6/00 Application Review for Reclamation Plan and Use Permit 

33 9/15/00 Letter From Larry Evans to Wayne Virag re: Use permit and 

reclamation plan 

34 10/17/00 Letter From Richard Barnum to Mark Teague re: Use Permit and 

reclamation plan 

35 10/27/00 Letter From Richard Barnum to Stan Swenson re: Cease and Desist 

Order – Illegal Mining Activity 

36 10/31/00 Letter From Richard Barnum to Wayne Virag re: Swenson Violation 

37 11/1/00 Memo From Wayne Virag re: Illegal Mining Activity – Stanley 

Swenson, Grenada 

38 11/8/00 Letter From Richard Barnum to Stan Swenson re: Compliance 

Schedule for Illegal Mining Activity, Grenada 

39 12/5/00 Letter From John Tannaci to Wayne Virag re: Swenson Quarry 

40 12/8/00 Memo From Richard Barnum to Frank Demarco re: Closed Session – 

Stan Swenson Illegal Mining Activity 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 37 of 47
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 

38

ID Date Document Description 

41 12/20/00 Memo From Wayne Virag to Pete Knoll re: Illegal Quarrying 

Activity – Stan Swenson 

42 1/19/01 Letter From Richard Barnum to Mark Teague re: Swenson Use 

Permit and Reclamation Plan 

43 8/1/01 Letter From Scott Sumner to Wayne Virag re: Swenson Pit 

44 8/27/01 Complaint For Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalties in matter of 

Swenson v. People 

45 11/7/01 Letter From Norma Schettino to Wayne Virag re: Larry Allen’s 

address 

46 11/13/01 Letter From Tim Pappas to Wayne Virag 

47 11/13/01 Letter From Stan Swenson to Howard Moody re: Blatant Abuse of 

Power 

48 8/6/02 Letter From Darrin Mercier to Lawrence Allen re: State of CA v. 

Swenson 

49 8/19/02 Request For Dismissal in Swenson v. People 

50 8/20/02 Technical Memorandum From Mike Winton to Brian McDermott re: 

Safety Study at the North Old Stage Road RR Under-crossing 

51 9/5/02 Memo From Brian McDermott to Howard Moody re: Swenson Rock 

Pit, Railroad Undercrossing Traffic Study 

52 10/31/02 Letter From Wayne Virag to Stan Swenson re: Use 

Permit/Reclamation Plan Application 

53 12/10/02 Letter From Darrin Mercier to Rick Barnum re: Siskiyou County Use 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 38 of 47
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 

39

ID Date Document Description 

Permit 

54 12/11/02 Fax From Buzz Knight to Wayne Virag and Rick Barnum re: Use 

Permit 

55 12/12/02 Letter From Darrin Mercier to Rick Barnum re: Siskiyou County Use 

Permit 

56 12/12/02 Letter From Wayne Virag to Buzz Knight re: Campbell Pit 

Entitlement Status 

57 3/13/03 Letter From Wayne Virag to Stan Swenson re: Campbell Quarry and 

Hot Plant Status 

58 3/6/03 Letter From Darrin Mercier to Wayne Virag re: Campbell Quarry and 

Hot Plant Permits 

59 3/20/03 Letter From Wayne Virag to Darrin Mercier re: Campbell Quarry 

60 10/27/04 Letter From Wayne Virag to Darrin Mercier re: Campbell Quarry and 

Batch Plant 

61 2/2/05 Letter From Frank DeMarco to Darren Mercier re: Swenson – 

viability of use permit, determination of rights 

62 2/14/05 Letter From Darren Mercier to Frank J. DeMarco re: 

Swenson/Siskiyou County Use Permit 

63 2/15/05 Swenson’s Complaint for Declaratory Relief in Swenson v. County of 

Siskiyou 

64 2/21/05 Letter From Darren Mercier to Frank DeMarco re: Swenson v. 

County of Siskiyou, et al. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 39 of 47
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 

40

ID Date Document Description 

65 3/24/05 Letter From Darren Mercier to Philip Price to Swenson v. County of 

Siskiyou, et al. 

66 3/25/05 Letter From Philip Price to Darren Mercier re: Swenson v. County of 

Siskiyou-Campbell Quarry and Hot Batch Plant 

67 4/4/05 Location Map 

68 4/18/05 Letter From Wayne Virag to Property Owner re: Public Hearing on 

Appeal of Administrative Decision for Stan Swenson 

69 4/26/05 Letter From Darrin Mercier to Frank DeMarco, Wayne Virag, Philip 

Price re: Swenson vs. County of Siskiyou, Appeal of Administrative 

Decision 

70 4/28/05 Letter From Frank DeMarco to Darren Mercier re: Swenson v. 

County of Siskiyou, Appeal of administrative decision. 

71 4/28/05 Letter From Philip Price to Darren Mercier cc: Frank DeMarco re: 

Swenson v. County of Siskiyou, Superior Court of Siskiyou County 

Case 

72 5/2/05 Letter From Darren Mercier to Frank DeMarco, Philip Price re: 

Swenson vs. County of Siskiyou, Appeal of Administrative Decision 

73 5/3/05 Letter From Frank DeMarco to Darrin Mercier re: Swenson vs. 

County of Siskiyou, Appeal of Administrative Decision 

74 5/3/05 Letter From Linda Schulken to Darren Mercier cc: Frank DeMarco re 

Swenson vs. County of Siskiyou 

75 5/4/05 Siskiyou County Planning Commission Regular Meeting – Appeal of 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 40 of 47
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 

41

ID Date Document Description 

Administrative Decision for Stan Swenson 

76 5/4/05 Swenson Appeal – Transcript of May 4, 2005 

77 5/4/05 Staff Report – May 4, 2005 – Appeal of Administrative Decision for 

Stan Swenson 

78 5/4/05 Appeal of the Administrative Decision by County of Siskiyou 

Related to Stan Swenson – Brief on Behalf of Interested Person Stan 

Swenson 

79 5/10/05 Closed Session – Pending Litigation 

80 5/10/05 Memo From Cathie McCanna to Property Owner or Affected Agency 

re: Public Hearing 

81 5/17/05 

5/24/15 

Before the Board of Supervisors, County of Siskiyou – Meeting 

Minutes 

82 5/17/15 Agenda Worksheet in Setting of Possible Appeal of Planning 

Commission Decision of May 4, 2005, Regarding the Swenson 

Matter 

83 5/24/05 Agenda Worksheet in Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision 

Concerning the Status of a Use Permit to Allow an Asphalt Batch 

Plant for Stan Swenson 

84 5/24/05 Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings re: Board of Supervisors 

Meeting 

85 5/25/05 Nature of Proceedings: Court’s Ruling on Demurrer of Defendant 

(Sustained) 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 41 of 47
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 

42

ID Date Document Description 

86 10/6/05 Plaintiff’s SAC for Petition For Writ of Mandate and for Declaratory 

Relief 

87 11/4/05 Defendant’s Demurrer of County of Siskiyou to SAC for Petition for 

Writ of Mandate and for Declaratory Relief; MTS; RJN; Notice of 

Hearing; MPA 

88 11/22/05 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Demurrer to SAC 

89 11/30/05 Defendant County of Siskiyou’s Reply to Opposition to Demurrer of 

County of Siskiyou to SAC for Declaratory Relief; MTC Joinder of 

Indispensable Parties; RJN 

90 12/22/05 Nature of Proceedings: Ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer to and 

Motion to Strike and Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and 

Request for Judicial Notice 

91 11/06/06 Nature of Proceedings: Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate 

(Granted) 

92 4/16/07 Email From Barry Shioshita to Terry Barber, Frank DeMarco, Rita 

Haas re: Swenson Gravel Pit 

93 5/15/07 Nature of Proceedings: Decision 

94 7/20/07 Judgment 

95 9/14/07 Memo From Neal Scott re: Railroad Grade Separation Project, North 

Old Stage Road 

96 10/31/07 Plaintiff’s Order After Hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s 

Fees and Defendant’s Amended Motion to Tax Costs 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 42 of 47
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 

43

ID Date Document Description 

97 8/14/08 Siskiyou County Codes re: Zoning (retrieved 8/14/2008) 

98 1/28/09 Statement of Economic Interests for Siskiyou County 

99 6/23/10 Declaration of Lavada Erickson in Support of MSJ or Summary 

Adjudication of Defendants 

100 7/1/01 Declaration of Greg Plucker in Support of MSJ or Summary 

Adjudication of Defendants 

101 7/1/10 Declaration of Marcia Armstrong in Support of MSJ or Summary 

Adjudication of Defendants 

102 8/25/10 Declaration of Greg Plucker in Support of MSJ re: Typographical 

Error in Declaration 

103 9/1/10 Business License Application for Swenson Hot Mix Asphalt Plant 

104 10/4/10 Administrative Record Vol. 1 

105 10/4/10 Administrative Record Vol. 2 

106 12/17/13 Stanley Swenson’s Gravel Pit – Paving and Highway Contractors’ 

Estimated Purchases 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 43 of 47
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 

44

ATTACHMENT D: Defendants’ Exhibits 

DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT LIST

ID Date Document Description 

A 8/3/1966 Use Permit issued to C. O. Palmer 

B 9/9/1991 Letter from Earl Campbell to Department of Conservation 

C 6/25/2991 Agreement between the County of Siskiyou and Earl Campbell 

D 4/1/2014 Letter from Earl Campbell to Philip Price 

E 3/22/1996 Letter from Richard Barnum to Stan Swenson 

F 4/14/1999 Agreement between County of Siskiyou and Stanley and Therese 

Swenson 

G 1/10/2000 County of Siskiyou Reclamation Plan for Mt. Shasta Pit 

H 8/28/2000 Use Permit Application submitted by Stanley Swenson 

I 8/28/2000 Reclamation Plan Application submitted by Stanley Swenson 

J 4/23/2000 Reclamation Plan submitted by Stanley Swenson 

K 8/28/2000 Application Information Sheet 

L 9/5/2000 Project Application Review from Wayne Virag with attached Staff 

Review 

M 9/5/2000 Local Agency Review List 

N 9/6/2000 Application Review 

O 9/15/2000 Letter from Larry Evans, Siskiyou County Department of Public 

Works to Wayne Virag 

P 9/18/2000 Letter from Wayne Virag to Mark Teague with attached responses 

from Mt. Shasta Fire district, Siskiyou County Public Works, CA. 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 44 of 47
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 

45

ID Date Document Description 

Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection 

Q 9/19/2000 Letter from Richard Barnum to Stan and Therese Swenson with 

attached indemnification agreement 

R 10/3/2000 

10/11/2000 

Letter from Department of Conservation attached 

Letter from Wayne Virag to Mark Teague 

S 10/17/2000 Letter from Richard Barnum, Planning Director, to Mr. Mark Teague 

T 1/19/2001 Letter from Richard Barnum to Mark Teague 

U 2/2/2001 Letter from California Regional Water Quality Control Board to 

Stanley Swenson 

V 9/5/2002 Letter from Brian McDermott to Richard Barnum with enclosed 

Omni Means Traffic Study 

W 10/31/2002 Letter from Wayne Virag to Stanley Swenson 

X 12/10/2002 Darrin Mercier to Rick Barnum 

Y 12/12/2002 Wayne Virag to Buzz Knight 

Z 2/13/2003 Letter from Wayne Virag to Stanley Swenson 

AA 3/20/2003 Letter from Wayne Virag to Darrin Mercier 

BB Article 46 of the Siskiyou County Code “Light Industrial District” 

CC Article 25 of the Siskiyou County Code “Nonconforming Land, 

Buildings and Uses” 

DD Article 14 of the Siskiyou County Code “Expiration, Revocation and 

Appeals” 

EE 2/14/2005 Letter from Darrin Mercier to Frank DeMarco 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 45 of 47
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 

46

ID Date Document Description 

FF 3/24/2005 Letter from Darrin Mercier to Philip B. Price 

GG 3/25/2005 Letter from Philip Price to Darrin Mercier

HH Public hearing notices for Planning Commission Appeal

II 4/28/2005 Letter from Philip Price to Darrin Mercier

JJ 5/2/2005 Letter from Darrin Mercier to County Counsel and Philip Price

KK 5/3/2005 Letter from Philip Price to Darrin Mercier

LL 5/4/2005 Staff Report to Planning Commission

MM 5/4/2005 Brief on behalf of Stanley Swenson

NN Transcript of Recording of Planning Commission Hearing

OO 5/4/2005 Siskiyou County Planning Commission Meeting Minute Order and 

Decision 

PP 5/17/2005 Agenda Worksheet

QQ 5/24/2005 Agenda Worksheet

RR 5/24/2005 Public Comments

SS 5/10/2005 Closed Session Minute Order

TT 5/10/2005 Public Notice

UU 5/16/2005 Swenson Notice of Appeal

VV 5/17/2007 Minute Order (Board of Supervisors)

WW 5/24/2005 Agenda (Board of Supervisors)

XX 5/24/2005 Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings

YY 5/24/2005 Decision by Board of Supervisors

ZZ 12/22/2005 Ruling on Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint 

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 46 of 47
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 

47

ID Date Document Description 

A-3 5/15/2007 Decision by Judge William Davis

B-3 7/20/2007 Judgment from Siskiyou County Superior Court 

C-3 8/20/20007 Business License Application

D-3 8/30/2010 Amended Memorandum regarding Business License 

E-3 Swenson’s Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One

F-3 Swenson’s Computation of Damages

G-3 1/9/2014 Expert Report of Craig Enos with attached exhibits 

H-3 3/12/2014 Supplemental Expert Report of Craig Enos with attached exhibits

I-3 Expert Report of David Gallo, with attached exhibits 

J-3 Supplemental Expert Report of David Gallo with attached exhibits

K-3 Emailed Supplemental Reports of David Gallo 

L-3 Angela Casler CV 

M-3 Expert Report of Angela Casler with attached exhibits

N-3 Supplemental Report of Angela Casler with attached exhibits

O-3 Expert Report of Thomas Chapman with attached exhibits

P-3 Supplemental Report of Thomas Chapman with attached exhibits

Q-3 Second Supplemental Report of Thomas Chapman with attached 

exhibits 

R-3 Thomas Chapman Spreadsheets combined

S-3 California Public Resources Code Section 2770(a)-(e)

Case 2:08-cv-01675-KJM-CMK Document 223 Filed 09/28/15 Page 47 of 47