Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00386/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00386-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

BNSF Railway Company; Matthew

Kelly McCauley; Joel Frederick Briggs, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The Honorable Chief Judge Joseph Flies

Away, in his capacity as Chief Judge of

the Hualapai Tribal Court, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-0386-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants and Appellants The Honorable Joseph Flies Away, et al., have certified

that transcripts of proceedings in this Court are unnecessary on appeal and that Appellants

should not have to pay for the transcripts. Dkt. #166 at 1. Appellees BNSF Railway

Company, et al., have filed a response in opposition. Dkt. #167. For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will order Appellants to pay for all the requested transcripts. 

I. Discussion.

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 10-3.1(a)-(b), when an appellant serves on appellee a

statement indicating that appellant does not intend to order any transcripts, the appellee may

respond with a list of transcripts it deems necessary on appeal. If the appellant disagrees with

appellee, the appellant shall “certify to the district court . . . that portions listed by appellee

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 168 Filed 03/26/07 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

- 2 -

. . . are unnecessary.” 9th Cir. R. 10-3.1(d). “The district court shall determine which party

shall pay for which portions of the transcript.” 9th Cir. R. 10-3.1(f). 

Appellants have certified that the six transcripts requested by Appellee are

unnecessary to the appeal. The Court will address each transcript in turn.

A. 02/03/05 Hearing on Temporary Restraining Order.

Appellants claim that while they disagree with the Court’s grant of a temporary

restraining order, they are not appealing this order but are instead appealing, among other

things, the Court’s grant of preliminary and permanent injunctions in favor of Appellees.

Dkt. #166 at 1-2. Appellees respond that the transcript is necessary because many of the

same arguments asserted in support of the preliminary and permanent injunctions were first

considered by the Court in the hearing on the temporary restraining order. The Court agrees

with Appellees that this transcript may not be deemed unnecessary to appeal on this basis.

Appellants next argue that the transcript is not relevant on appeal because it does not

contain findings of fact, but merely consists of legal arguments resolved by the Court in

various orders. Dkt. #166 at 2. Appellants cite no authority for their position that transcripts

relevant to an appeal must contain witness testimony or findings of fact. Dkt. #167 at 5. The

Court finds that legal arguments made by counsel and resolved by the Court at this hearing

are relevant on appeal. A party may decide to use the transcript to underscore or further

explain its positions throughout this litigation. The transcript is also relevant to set forth

specific arguments made by counsel on which the Court relied in making its decisions.

Finally, Appellants argue that the transcript is unnecessary because it “has already

been served on the Appellee in a prior, related appeal arising out of the same case.” Dkt.

#166 at 2. Appellees first dispute that the transcript was provided to them, but assert that

even if it were, Appellants still must produce the transcript. This position is correct. The

Court has rejected similar arguments that a transcript should not be provided because it has

been provided in the past. See Hudock v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. CV-02-583-

PHX-DGC, 2006 WL 1127373, at *1 (D. Ariz. April 26, 2006). Appellants cite no authority

to support the position that otherwise necessary transcripts should not be provided to a party

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 168 Filed 03/26/07 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

1

For each requested transcript, Appellants make the same argument that the transcript

is not relevant because the Court made no findings of fact and Appellants’ appeal only relates

to the Court’s legal rulings. For reasons discussed in Part I(a), the Court will reject this

argument as it relates to each requested transcript.

- 3 -

that received them in the past. Even assuming Appellees did receive the transcript, which

is disputed, they are under no obligation to retain records from a different appeal. Appellees

should not be penalized because Appellants decided to file a second appeal arising out of the

same case. Pursuant to Rule 10-3.1(f), the Court therefore finds that Appellants must pay for

this transcript.

B. 03/03/05 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction.

Appellants argue that this transcript is unnecessary because it does not contain

findings of fact and has already been provided to Appellees. For the reasons set forth above,

the Court rejects these arguments and finds that Appellants must pay for this transcript.1

C. 09/21/05 Scheduling Conference.

As Appellants explain, this hearing “resulted in a Case Management Order (Dkt. #69)

authorizing discovery and establishing certain deadlines.” One of the issues on appeal is

whether the “District Court erred in not permitting discovery and developing a complete

factual record before determining whether tribal jurisdiction exists in this case.” Dkt. #159

at 2. The Court therefore finds the transcript relevant on appeal, and orders Appellants to pay

for this transcript.

D. 05/19/06 Status Conference.

The parties are uncertain of the content of this status conference. Appellants describe

the hearing as merely one in which “the parties contemplated a stipulation for an extension

of time for Appellant to file a response to Appellee’s summary judgment motion.” Dkt. #166

at 3. The Court has reviewed the transcript of this hearing and finds it relevant on appeal.

During the call, the parties asked the Court to rule on whether the preliminary injunction,

which stayed all proceedings in Hualapai Tribal Court, would preclude the Tribal Court from

issuing a stipulated dismissal of the case pursuant to an order from the tribe’s executive

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 168 Filed 03/26/07 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 -

branch that the issue was a political question not properly decided in Tribal Court. The Court

questioned the parties on the time necessary for the issuance of such an order and the length

of the appeals process in Tribal Court. At the end of the hearing, the Court indicated that it

might be inclined to modify the preliminary injunction to allow the Tribal Court to dismiss

the case provided the parties could stipulate that such a process would be swifter in resolving

the case than the ongoing proceedings in federal court. The Court stated that it would extend

the time for filing a response to the motion for summary judgment if the parties agreed on

a procedure to resolve the case quickly in Tribal Court. 

There is discussion in the transcript of Appellants’ basis for wanting a modification

of the preliminary injunction, which the Court ultimately declined to modify. Dkt. #115.

One of the issues on appeal is whether the “District Court erred in denying the Defendants’

Motion for Reconsideration of its Order Denying Modification of Preliminary Injunction.”

Dkt. #159. The Court finds this transcript relevant to appeal and orders Appellants to pay

for it. 

E. 06/07/06 Conference Call.

As Appellants correctly state, this hearing resulted in an order denying modification

of the preliminary injunction. Dkt. #115. One of the issues on appeal is whether the

“District Court erred in denying the Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of its Order

Denying Modification of Preliminary Injunction.” Dkt. #159. Another issue on appeal is

whether the Court properly granted the preliminary injunction in the first place. Id. The

Court finds the transcript of this hearing relevant on appeal and orders Appellant to pay for

this transcript. 

F. 09/29/06 Conference Call.

Appellants argue this transcript is unnecessary because the Court only clarified its

preliminary injunction order by explaining that the order did not prevent the Sullivan

Defendants from proceeding in state court. Appellants claim this clarification is not relevant

because “[t]he matter on appeal does not require review of the preliminary injunction as it

might apply to the Sullivan defendants[.]” Dkt. #166 at 4. Appellees respond that this

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 168 Filed 03/26/07 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 -

clarification of the preliminary injunction is relevant insofar as Appellants challenge the

validity of the preliminary injunction on appeal. Dkt. #167 at 7. The Court agrees. A

relevant issue on appeal will be whether the scope of the preliminary injunction was proper.

The Court cannot say that a hearing on the scope of the preliminary injunction would be

irrelevant simply because the clarification related to the non-Tribal Defendants. The Court

orders Appellants to pay for this transcript.

IT IS ORDERED:

Plaintiff shall make payment arrangements with the court reporter regarding the

transcripts designated by Defendant (Dkt. #167, Ex. 2) by April 9, 2007. 

DATED this 26th day of March, 2007.

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 168 Filed 03/26/07 Page 5 of 5