Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06064/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06064-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
Cause of Action: 40:258(a) Public Buildings &amp; Property: Land Condemnation

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

87.98 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR )

LESS IN THE COUNTY OF MERCED; )

DONN RAYMOND CHAMPION, et al., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-6064 AWI LJO

PRETRIAL ORDER

Motions In Limine Hearing:

November 2, 2005

10:00a.m., Courtroom 3

 

Trial: November 8, 2005

8:30 a.m., Courtroom 3

RULES OF CONDUCT

The pretrial conference was held on October 28, 2005. The trial in this matter is

set for Tuesday, November 8, 2005. The parties currently estimate that the trial shall take nine

days.

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1403. Jurisdiction is proper in this

Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1358.

II. Jury Trial

Defendant requests a jury.

2.1. Order of Proof

The order of plaintiff’s and defendant’s are reversed in a condemnation trial and

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 1 of 33
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

defendant has the burden of proof. Accordingly in this case defendant will open and close.

III. Facts

A. Undisputed Facts

The following facts are admitted and require no proof:

A. On August 7, 2003, plaintiff filed a Complaint in Condemnation seeking an

easement interest in 87.98 acres of property under its power of eminent domain. Plaintiff’s

complaint states “[t]he public use for which said interests in the land are to be taken are

easements for a transmission line and access road to be used as an integral part of the power

transmission system of the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie Project”. The date of

taking is August 7, 2003. 

B. Defendant owns title in fee to the property subject to this action, which

comprises an aggregate of parcels totalling 3,220.52 acres of land, including the 87.98 acres to

which plaintiff obtained an easement interest (“subject property”). The 87.98 acres is more

specifically described in Schedule “A” attached to plaintiff’s Declaration of Taking. Defendant

filed an answer in this action, among other things, challenging the taking or alternatively seeking

severance damages pursuant to the same on October 23, 2003.

C. On July 29, 2003, plaintiff deposited $39,430 as its estimated just

compensation for this taking. On July 13, 2005 and pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court

ordered the clerk to issue a check to defendant in the above amount, “plus interest earned, less

distribution for registry service fee.”

D. Plaintiff obtained an Order for Delivery of Possession filed by the Court

on August 12, 2003. 

E. On January 22, 2004, the Court endorsed by way of formal order the parties’

stipulation to striking defendant’s affirmative defenses. As a result, the parties agreed that the

case should “proceed against [defendant] on the issue of just compensation, including

[defendant’s] entitlement to severance damages.

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 2 of 33
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

F. As set forth in defendant’s “Statement of Genuine Issues in Opposition to

Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication that Residential Subdivision is Not the Highest and

Best Use” filed on or about September 9, 2005, the following additional facts are undisputed:

THE PROPERTY

1. There are no structures on the subject property, excepting the existing and new

transmission lines, one old cabin, abandoned wind turbines, working corrals and two wells with

pumping facilities.

2. The larger parcel consists of 3,220.52 acres of raw grazing land.

3. The condemnation is for easements for a transmission line, consisting of 74.89

acres for the transmission line and 13.09 acres for access easements.

4. The easement is 200 feet wide.

5. The property was inspected by plaintiff’s appraiser Correia on February 17, 2005,

with the effective date of valuation being August 7, 2003, the date plaintiff filed the Declaration

of Taking.

6. The property is located about one mile south of State Highway 152, about five

miles south of Santa Nella in Merced County. The property is west of Interstate 5.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING

7. The property is zoned A-2, exclusive agriculture with a minimum parcel size of

160 acres.

7(A) The Merced County General Plan calls for exclusive agriculture in this area.

7(B) The “Foothill pasture” designation is described in the General Plan, and limits the

land to one dwelling per 160 acres. (General Plan, Land Use, p. I-12, I-17.)

7(C) Discretionary land use applications, such as new subdivisions, “must be found

consistent with the General Plan prior to approval.” (Id., at p. I-1).

7(D) The subject property’s General Plan and zoning would need to be amended for

defendant to develop the subject property.

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 3 of 33
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

WATER

8(A) The subject property’s water supply consists only of two wells and one spring. 

8(B) Pursuant to SB 221, the verification of an adequate supply of water is a condition

of approval for the tentative map.

9(A) The subject property was annexed into the San Luis Water District’s boundary in

1996.

9(B) The San Luis Water District wrote defendant a letter on November 11, 2003

stating, among other things, that the annexation will not result in the land’s entitlement to an

additional water allocation from the District.

9(C) Gary Sawyers is the General Counsel for the San Luis Water District, and is

generally familiar with the subject property.

9(D) The San Luis Water District is legally prohibited from delivering water to the

subject property or any other land that has not satisfied the requirements of the Endangered

Species Act or SB 221.

9(E) Gary Sawyers, on the date of his deposition, said he is not aware of any water for

sale on a permanent basis within the District’s boundary.

9(F) Gary Sawyers, on the date of his deposition, stated it would be challenging to find

a seller of water from outside the Water District because there are not a lot of sellers out there.

9(G) The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approved Agua Fria’s

annexation into the water district (1996).

10. Residential subdivision development of the subject property could not be

adequately supplied by well water.

SURROUNDING AREA, COMPARABLES AND APPRAISALS

11(A) The Santa Nella community area has been designated as a potential growth area

within the next 20 years.

11(B) The subject property, however, is not located within the specific urban

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 4 of 33
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

development plan area of Santa Nella.

12. Of the seven properties to which defendant’s appraiser compared Agua Fria, six

are entitled to agricultural water from the San Luis Water District. All of these properties contain

some form of agricultural zoning. The one parcel without an entitlement to agricultural water is

zoned highway commercial.

12(A) The Villages is in the process of attempting to secure and identify water rights for

its development. 

13(A) Merced County approved an initial Guidance Package for the Villages in 1991, as

amended in 1993, to initiate the residential development process for the Villages.

13(B) Informal discussion between the Applicant and Merced County began regarding the

Villages in 1989.

13(C) Merced County decided to complete a Notice/New Initial Study regarding the

Villages in the fall of 2004 “considering the length of time since the original Initial Study was

released for this Project (1992) and given the various land use changes that have been added to

the proposed property since that time.

13(D) The Notice of Initial Study states the proposed Villages development would be

developed in phases over a 25 year period. Development of the Villages Community will occur

in phases over an estimated 25-year period. 

13(E) The Wild Wind Ranch portion of Agua Fria (1,328 acres) is designated as urban

reserve on the Villages’ proposed Specific Urban Development Plan. The rest of Agua Fria

property is not within the area to be developed under the Villages project.

14. The proposed developable area of Agua Fria is 805 acres of the 3,220 acres to meet

the 3:1 ratio open space requirement for mitigation of Kit Fox habitat and protection of their

identified movement corridor.

B. Disputed Facts

As to factual matters in dispute, the parties attach to this statement as Exhibit “A” the

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 5 of 33
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

“Statement of Genuine Issues In Dispute” that defendant filed on or about September 9, 2005 in

response to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding the issue of highest and

best use. In addition to those undisputed facts identified above, the Statement of Genuine Issues

identifies factual disputes in the case.

In addition, the parties dispute the issue of amount of just compensation due to the

defendant. Plaintiff therefore maintains that those facts relevant to just compensation are

likewise in dispute. Plaintiff’s appraiser (Correia) values the fee value of the land at

approximately $955/acre based in part on his conclusion that the highest and best use is

agriculture. For the power line easement of 74.89 acres he values that easement as 90% of fee or

approximately $855/acre, producing $64,031 in compensation, and for the access, maintenance

road of 13.09 acres he values that easement at approximately 99% of fee or $954/ac for $12,488

in compensation. The total compensation for the taking is $76,519.

Defendant’s appraiser (Gimmy) conversely values the fee value of the land at

$21,000/acre for the developable portion of the land of 805 acres and $1000/acre for the balance

of the land (2,415 acre), based on his conclusion that the highest and best use is planned

residential community and/or developer-purchasers recognize the development potential of the

land for such use. Because defendant maintains that the power line easement of 74.89 acres

traverses the developable portion of the property, defendant’s appraiser values that at 90% of fee

for $1,415,000. As to the 13.09 acres of access, maintenance road, he values that at 10% of fee,

considering it the equivalent of a temporary construction easement, for $27,000. Accordingly,

defendant’s appraiser values the total compensation for the taking of the easements at

$1,442,000.

Plaintiff’s appraiser finds no severance damage. Defendant’s appraiser finds severance

damage. Defendant’s appraiser maintains that the impact of the transmission line over the

developable area of the remaining property has the effect of wiping out any planned residential

development of the property, according to defendant’s experts. According to defendant’s

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 6 of 33
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

appraiser, this affects 805 acres, reducing its before value from $21,000/acre to $1000/acre, for

damages of $14,858,000.

Defendant’s appraiser also opines that the Campion land could be reasonably assembled

with adjacent land on which Campion held right to purchase. Defendant maintains that this

would increase the developable area to 1,020 acres on Campion land. The loss of development to

that larger area produces additional damages of $1,700,000, based on assemblage. Plaintiff filed

a motion to preclude the presentation of any evidence at trial related to the value of just

compensation based in any way on the value of land that defendant has never owned (Motion in

Limine re Gimmy Opinion #2). The parties await the court’s ruling regarding this motion.

Finally, Defendant’s appraiser has investigated public project interference and delay of

Campion processing of his development applications and has found pre-condemnation damages

of $12,495,000.00. Defendant intends to use his appraiser’s opinion in this respect to add this

amount to the total severance damage amount of $14,658,000.00 referenced above. Plaintiff

filed a motion to preclude the presentation of any evidence at trial relating to development efforts

defendant chose not to undertake (Motion in Limine re Gimmy Opinion #3). The parties await

the court’s ruling regarding this motion.

Plaintiff contends that the following additional facts are in dispute. These disputes relate

to the extent:

a. The Merced County General Plan provides that the area of Agua Fria and

the Villages is or is not prime agricultural land to be preserved from development.

b. Adjacent properties known as the Villages of Laguna San Luis include no

portion of the subject property other than Wild Wind Ranch and the extent the Villages

has been in the pipeline seeking approval to develop for a very long time.

c. Developing residential subdivision on the subject property would require

amending the General Plan.

d. The subject property is or is not entitled to a supply of water from the San

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 7 of 33
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

Luis Water District.

e. Agua Fria’s annexation into the water district enables it to receive CVP

water for municipal and industrial use.

f. The EIR prepared for the Agua Fria inclusion into the District shows the

ultimate build-out of Agua Fria for a planned residential community per the Specific

Urban Development Plan Diagram.

g. The State Water Resource Control Board approved a Water Right Order

for 1,645 acres of Agua Fria into the CVP (1997), which states “water for the project will

be provided from existing users within the SLWD or from other CVP contractor’s service

areas.”

h. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation approved the Agua Fria annexation,

enabling the conversion of agricultural water resources to municipal and industrial use.

i. Brian Vail, one of the alleged owner-developers of the Villages and the

developer of the Fox Hill residential community, have been purchasing water rights from

agricultural parcels in the District.

j. Developers have been acquiring water from outside the District that will

be moved into the District.

k. Gary Sawyers has represented a number of other districts and a number of

private landowners, farmers, as well as development interests who are interested in either

buying or selling water.

l. The water district has very liberal policies with respect to allowing land

owners to transfer water among themselves.

m. That Mr. Gimmy’s properties identified as comparable to Agua Fria

contain a highway commercial designation that Agua Fria neither possesses nor seeks, are

zoned like Agua Fria, and/or have an entitlement to ag water from the water district.

n. Mr. Gimmy’s comparable sales 1 and 3 only, have a portion of their land

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 8 of 33
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

zoned highway commercial and were not purchased for that use.

o. Defendant has agricultural water from the District for Agua Fria.

p. Adjacent properties known as the Villages of Laguna San Luis includes no

portion of the subject property other than Wild Wind Ranch.

q. The Villages has been in the pipeline seeking approval for development

for a long time.

r. Merced County prepared, with the Villages consultant, a Preliminary Draft

Community Specific Plan.

s. Merced County was the lead agency for Administrative Draft EIR that was

completed for the Villages Community Specific Plan.

t. The proposed Specific Urban Development Plan Diagram in the Initial

Study of 2004 is virtually identical to the Proposed Specific Urban Development Diagram

in the Preliminary Draft Community Specific Plan for the Villages.

u. Defendant can process Agua Fria’s general plan amendment and rezoning

independent of the Villages’ application.

v. The County Planning Staff, in 1995, recommended a text revision to the

Villages’ proposed CSP to transfer the density of development from Wild Wind Ranch to

Agua Fria, given the transfer of development density avoids impact on wildlife habitat.

w. The proposed Agua Fria Development Plan, which defendant maintains as

being described as the Specific Urban Development Plan Diagram in the EIR and

providing for this protection of Kit Fox habitat and movement corridor land, has the

conceptual approval of U.S.F.W.S. and C.D.F.G.

x. That only 1/4 of the subject property’s acreage could be developed even if

the property was designated residential subdivision by the General Plan, zoned to allow

for residential use, and had a contract for water.

y. The 3:1 open space requirement is for mitigation of Kit Fox habitat and

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 9 of 33
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

other open spaces uses.

z. Plaintiff also contends that the parties dispute the height and location of

the Path 15 power lines and towers.

Defendant maintains that his Statement of Genuine Issues in opposition to Motion for

Partial Summary Adjudication that Residential Subdivision is not the Highest and Best Use, filed

with the Court on September 9, 2005, and the additional facts set forth above to be undisputed

under Section F are the general facts of the case and are not intended to be inclusive of all the

facts of the case, whether disputed or undisputed. Condemnation cases are primarily expert

driven as to testimony; the experts ostensibly gather data and then based on their investigation,

education and experience, provide opinions based on the data presented. But, how those facts are

interpreted by the experts in forming their respective opinions are in dispute with respect to the

following issues:

A. Highest and best use of the property, including a determination of the reasonable

probability of defendant’s rezoning and development, as well as defendant’s reasonable

probability of obtaining sufficient water for development, as of the date of the taking;

B. Extent of area of developable property on subject property, including the extent of

defendant’s ability to relocate developable area on other portions of remaining property; 

C. Comparability of sales utilized to support opinions; and

D. Severance Damages. With respect to the amount of defendant’s severance

damages, defendant intends to introduce evidence with respect to (1) effect of fear of EMF on

developer-purchasers and individual future home buyers (pending the Court’s ruling on the U.S.

Attorney’s motion to exclude EMF testimony of Sage), (2) noise and crackling from Path 15, (3)

visual impacts, (4) liability issues, (5) fire hazards, (6) transmission line maintenance intrusion,

and (7) bisection of defendant’s claimed developable area by the Path 15 easement. 

Plaintiff continues to strenuously maintain that the issue of severance damages should be

addressed solely by appraiser testimony with respect to the effect the transmission line has on

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 10 of 33
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

market value only. The parties await the Court’s rulings in this regard. Plaintiff also anticipates

moving in limine to exclude any evidence not previously produced pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26, as well as to exclude any evidence of settlement negotiations pursuant to

FRE 408. 

C. Disputed Evidentiary Issues

A. Preservation of Issues Raised by Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Motions

Plaintiff maintains that it raised very significant issues by way of four pre-trial Motions in

Limine, which were filed August 5, 2005, and were argued on October 11 and 17, 2005. Among

other things, the four Motions called upon the Court to exercise pre-trial screening under Rule

71A(h) governing condemnation cases, and to exclude irrelevant evidence under Rule 401, and

unduly prejudicial evidence under Rule 403. The Motions also called upon the Court to screen

expert testimony pursuant to Rules 702 and 703 as applied by the Supreme Court’s decisions in

Daubert and Kumho Tire Company. On October 17, 2005, the Court made some oral rulings

from the bench, stating that a written decision would follow. This Statement precedes any such

written decision. The purpose of this Section of this Statement, is to cooperate with the Court in

preserving the issues raised, while at the same time minimizing repetition of Motions that do not

meet the criteria —such as new law or new facts–expected on a Motion for Reconsideration, and

minimizing repetitive or unnecessary objections during the Trial. 

1. Motion for Partial Summary Adjudication, or in the 

Alternative, Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Residential Subdivision as Highest and

Best Use

This Motion included extensive briefing and Exhibits filed by both sides. By way

of brief description, without rearguing the Motion here, contentions included that residential

subdivision on the 3220 acre ranch was not reasonably likely in the near future, and that there

was not a reasonable likelihood of amending the General Plan and changing the zoning in the

near future, to make residential subdivision legally permissible on the ranch. Absence of any

showing of likely Plan amendment, and absence of water for residential use, were among the

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 11 of 33
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

issues argued. As the Court stated on October 11, 2005, this was a significant Motion.

On October 17, 2005, the Court characterized the Motion as one for summary

adjudication, noted the burden on the moving party, and denied the Motion. Though the Court

did not appear to expressly rule on the alternative basis for the Motion–Motion in

Limine–plaintiff expects based on what the Court said at the hearing, that the Court will deny

that as well in its written ruling. 

In any event, plaintiff wishes to clearly preserve the issues raised by this Motion, for postverdict proceedings in the District Court, and for appeal from judgment. Plaintiff requests the

Court to determine in the Pre-trial Order what, if anything, further, is necessary for plaintiff to

preserve the issues raised by this Motion. 

It is defendant’s position that the Court did rule on the U.S.’s Motion to Exclude

Evidence of Residential Use Being the Highest and Best Use in finding that there was credible

evidence to present to the jury on the issue, and that it was for the jury as the trier of fact to

determine the highest and best use for the property.

2. Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Arthur E. Gimmy and Richard A.

Watson.

Description of this and the remaining Motions will be more brief than above. 

This Motion was related to both the above and below Motions. It appeared from the comments

made by the Court on October 17, 2005, that the Court either was denying this Motion also, or

would be denying it in the upcoming written ruling. As true of the Motion discussed in part 1,

above, plaintiff wishes to clearly preserve the issues raised by this Motion, for post-verdict

proceedings in the District Court, and for appeal from judgment.

3. Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Defendant’s Development Plans

It appeared from the comments made by the Court at the October 17, 2005,

hearing, that the Court has reserved ruling on this Motion. The Court has ordered defendant to

notify the Court a day ahead of time during the trial prior to attempting to offer the development

plan into evidence, for the purpose of making an offer of proof and having an evidentiary hearing

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 12 of 33
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

outside the presence of the jury. If the Court ultimately allows this evidence in, plaintiff will also

wish to preserve the issues raised by this Motion . Plaintiff contends, briefly given that the

Motion has already been argued, that there does not appear to be any known basis under Rules of

Evidence 702 and 703, as applied by the Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Kumho Tire Company v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.

137 (1999), for either Mr. Gimmy or Mr. Watson to opine, that the one out of every four acres

that could be developed if residential development were authorized, should or need be developed

in the place and manner shown in the development plan. Plaintiff further contends that there

does not appear to be any known basis for concluding that defendant has adequately raised under

Rules 71 A(h), 403, 702, and 703, an issue as to a “replacement” not being available, severance

damages, or a separate zone of value, given the rules and cases on this subject. (Cases cited in

United States Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Motion to Exclude Development Plan at pp. 7-

8, filed September 16, 2005, Rules 403, 702 and 703, Daubert and Kumho Tire Company)

Additionally, there is no issue raised as to suitability of the land for development that

supports relevance of the development plan. The issues raised by plaintiff such as lack of legal

permissibility of residential development under the General Plan and zoning, and lack of water, 

apply to all of the 3200 acre ranch. These issues are not specific to the portion of the ranch

involved in the development plan. The jury could be told that defendant has prepared one or

more residential subdivision plans for the ranch, including the dates of preparation. The plans

themselves lack relevance but are unduly prejudicial. 

4. Motion in Limine to (1) Exclude Evidence of Alleged Science of Alleged

Dangers of EMF (Electromagnetic Fields) From the Transmission Line and (2) Exclude Cindy

Sage from Testifying

The Court either granted this Motion or intends to grant this Motion, as made

clear by the comments made by the Court at the October 17, 2005, hearing. Consequently, it is

unnecessary for plaintiff to raise in this pre-trial Statement any wish to preserve the issues raised

by the Motion.

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 13 of 33
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

B. Additional Evidentiary Issues

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e) and 37(c), both plaintiff and defendant

seek to exclude any evidence defendant seeks to introduce that was not properly disclosed prior

to trial, as well as any evidence relating to settlement communications pursuant to Federal Rule

of Evidence 408. 

6. Additional Factual Information re: Eminent Domain Case

A. Information Re: Parcel in Dispute

The United States’ easement interest obtained in or about August 2003 comprises 87.98

acres. This easement falls within a larger parcel of property comprising 3,220.52 acres of raw

grazing land, generally known as “Agua Fria”. The 87.98 acre easement comprises two

components, a 74.89 transmission line easement as well as a 13.09 acre access easement. The

access easement provides access to the transmission easement.

The 3,220.52 parcel of land encompassing the easement whose value is in dispute in this

action is located approximately one mile south of State Highway 152, about five miles south of

Santa Nella in Merced County, California. 

The parties identify more specific plans and/or maps identifying the 74.89 acre

transmission line easement and the 13.09 acre access easement within their exhibits lists.

B. Consolidation

The parties do not believe this action should be consolidated with any other actions.

C. Suggested Procedures Re: Exchange of Comparable Sales Lists

The parties have already exchanged comparable sales lists in the form of appraiser

reports.

D. Evidence of Value Other than Comparable Sales

None presented.

7. Relief Sought

Plaintiff initially deposited $39,430 with the Court as an estimated amount of just

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 14 of 33
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

compensation for the property taken. On July 13, 2005, the Court ordered the court clerk to issue

a check to defendant in the above amount, “plus interest earned, less distribution for registry

service fee.” The trier of fact must deduct this sum from whatever amount it ultimately

determines to be just compensation for the value of the property taken. Plaintiff disclosed an

expert report from property appraiser Tony Correia valuing the property interest taken at

$76,518.81. 

Defendant likewise disclosed an expert report from property appraiser Arthur Gimmy. 

Mr. Gimmy values defendant’s severance damages at $14,658,000.00. Mr. Gimmy also provides

two additional opinions based on certain “extraordinary assumptions” in which he values

defendant’s severance damages at higher amounts. Plaintiff moved in limine to prohibit Mr.

Gimmy from testifying about among other things his second and third opinions. The parties

await the court’s ruling in this respect.

8. Points of Law

The sole issue to be presented to the trier of fact is that of just compensation due to

defendant. (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71A.) It is defendant’s position that, by definition,

the determination of just compensation includes the determination of the issues of the highest

and best use of the property, and the reasonable probability the property would be approved for a

master plan residential community and would obtain the necessary water for the residential use. 

VI. Abandoned Issues

None. It appears to the parties that the California Department of Fish & Game has

abandoned its claim to compensation.

VII. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial,

including rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE

LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES

STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 15 of 33
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

PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 16-281(b)(10).

A. Plaintiffs’ Witnesses

The United States’ Witnesses

1. Steve Webber - WAPA

2. Don Roberts - WAPA 

3. Tony Correia - appraiser

4. Gary Sawyers - attorney for San Luis Water District

5. Heidi Miller - WAPA

6. R. Steven Warner - WAPA

7. *Plaintiff’s pretrial motions include a motion in limine to exclude

Richard Watson’s development plans. Plaintiffs so moved pursuant to, among other things,

Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, 701 and 702. Plaintiff understands that the Court tentatively

granted this motion, but may allow defendant to make an offer of proof regarding these plans by

way of evidentiary hearing outside of the presence of the jury. To the extent the Court ultimately

allows Richard Watson to testify about his proposed development plans (a ruling to which

plaintiff strenuously objects), then plaintiff intends to call a rebuttal witness regarding this issue.

Defendant believes that the Court tentatively denied plaintiff’s motion to exclude the

development plan as illustrative of the highest and best use of the property subject to an offer of

proof prior to introduction. And, defendant maintains that the development plan, which plaintiff

seeks to exclude, is not Richard Watson’s development plan; rather it is the development plan

that was analyzed in the certified Environmental Impact Report for Agua Fria’s inclusion into the

San Luis Water District and is identified in that EIR as the Specific Urban Development Plan

Diagram. Moreover, defendant objects to plaintiff’s attempt to call a rebuttal opinion witness

regarding the development plan or the development potential of the property, in violation of Rule

26(c).

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 16 of 33
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

B. Defendants’ Witnesses

1. Donn Campion - owner

2. Arthur Gimmy - appraiser

3. Richard Watson - land planner/development consultant

4. Cindy Sage - environmental consultant and planner

VIII. Exhibits

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties

expect to offer at trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION,

MAY BE ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT

THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 16-281(b)(11).

A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits

1. Attachments and schedules to complaint identifying property and location of

subject property, etc.,

2. November 11, 2003 Coxey Letter,

3. September 21, 1995 letter, William Nicholson, Asst. Planning Director to William

Gnass,

4. Correia deposition/exhibits,

5. Villages of Laguna Notice of Preparation/ Initial Study, November 2004,

6. Merced County Year 2000 General Plan,

7. The Potential Impact of EMF on Property Values, Gimmy, 11/1/94,

8. Gimmy deposition/exhibits to same,

9. Gimmy notes dated "9/16" re teleconference with Campion and attorneys,

10. Gimmy notes dated "8/19",

11. Gimmy letter to Downey Brand lawfirm, dated September 4, 2003,

12. Gimmy notes dated "8/7/03",

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 17 of 33
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

13. Gimmy notes dated "12/22" re meeting with Robert King of planning department,

14. Gimmy notes dates "12/15" re meeting with Donn Campion,

15. Parcel map of subject property,

16. Photograph of property (Exh. 7 to Campion deposition),

17. July 6, 2001 correspondence (Campion to WAPA),

18. Campion's Petition for Annexation of Territory, undated,

19. San Luis Water District Resolution 94-677,

20. Further Analysis of Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values,

Wolverton et al., The Appraisal Journal, July 2003,

21. Transmission Line Impact of Residential Property Values, Cowger et al., Right of

Way, Sept./Oct. 1996,

22. Power Lines, Visual Encumbrance and House Values, Des Rosiers, 23 JRER No.

3-2002,

23. Watson Deposition & Exhibits,

24. Sawyers Deposition & Exhibits,

25. Photos of subject property,

26. Maps of subject property,

27. Declaration of Taking, filed August 7, 2003,

28. July 29, 2003 letter, R. Steven Warner to Donn Campion, 

29. September 10, 2003 letter, R. Steven Warner to Donn Campion, and

30. Maps and charts regarding location, height, distance, etc. regarding power lines

and power poles.

31. Article entitled “Transmission Line Impact on Residential Property Values”

(Sept./Oct. 1996)

Plaintiff may supplement its exhibit list up to the time of the pretrial conference.

B. Defendants’ Exhibits

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 18 of 33
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

 # Exhibit Description

1 Location of Agua Fria,

Vicinity Map of Merced and Surrounding Counties

2 Map of general vicinity map

3 Map of Agua Fria Ranch

4 Map showing breakdown of Agua Fria between Wild Wind and Machado,

Ranches

5 Topography map of Agua Fria

6 Aerial photo of general vicinity

7 Aerial photo of Agua Fria

8 Aerial photo of Agua Fria with ridge lines

9 Map of Agua Fria w/keys to ground photos of before condition (Campion)

10 Map of Agua Fria w/keys to ground photos of after condition (Campion)

11 Ground photos of towers

12 Villages conceptual dev. plan w/o Wild Wind

13 Initial conceptual dev. plan for Wild Wind

14 Villages dev. Plan w/Wild Wind

15 San Luis Water Dist. Boundary Map before Agua Fria inclusion

16 San Luis Water District Boundary Map After Agua Fria Inclusion

17 Water place of use map for Agua Fria

18 Map of Campion water rights properties

19 Kit fox movement zones affecting Agua Fria

20 Agua Fria Physical and Natural map w/Path 15 line constraints

21 Combination 5-minute animation of photographs and images of 3D

computer model of Agua Fria, based on USGS topography

22 Scale Model of Agua Fria with Development Plan

23 Google Earth Aerial of location of Agua Fria to

Major cities of California

24 Google Earth Aerial of Agua Fria in relation to Bay Area

25 Google Earth Aerial of Agua Fria within Merced County

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 19 of 33
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

26 Google Earth Aerial of Development Projects Los Banos

27 Google Earth Aerial Agua Fria with Path 15 with poles on ground

28 Google Earth Aerial Overview of Agua Fria with pre-existing power lines

29 Google Earth Aerial of overview of Diablo Grande

30 Google Earth Aerials of comparison of Diablo Grande and Agua Fria

highway access points

31 Google Earth Aerial of Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant site with

overlay of plant

32 Aerial photos of emerging planned residential developments east of Bay

Area

33 Sales of property for development prior to date of valuation

34 Diablo Grande Oak Flat Villages

35 California High Speed Rail Northern California Alignments

36 Population Projections for the San Joaquin Valley by County (2000-2050)

37 Mission Viejo Company’s Inventory Replacement Program

38 Directions of Residential Growth in California

39 Residential Growth into the Central Valley from the Bay Area

40 Developable area before condition

41 Developable area after condition

42 Location of Agua Fria to priority regions and corridors

43 Economic Development in the San Joaquin Valley Portion of the Greater

Bay Area

44 Retirement Housing in the San Joaquin Valley Portion of the Greater Bay

Area

45 Prime Soils Map

46 New Towns and Planned Communities in the Central Valley

47 Residential Subdivisions in Western Merced County

48 Geological Map(s)

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 20 of 33
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

49 Map of Mid-Sized and Large U.S. Cities. Beyond Megalopolis; Exploring

America’s New ‘Megapolitan’ Geography. 2005 Metropolitan Institute at Virginia

Tech Census Report Series. 

50 Map of the Megapolitans. Beyond Megalopolis; Exploring America’s New

‘Megapolitan’ Geography. 2005 Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech Census

Report Series (and NorCal enlargement) 

51 Business 2.0 (Nov. 2005) Vol. 6, No. 10, articles on residential growth

trends and real estate boom areas in Northern California, pp. 84 and 97.

52 The Villages of Laguna San Luis Community Plan Initial Study for Merced

County (1/2005)

53 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for Agua Fria (6/2001)

54 Agua Fria Multi Species Final Habitat Management Plan and Budget

(12/2001)

55 Alternate Proposed Path 15 Route Maps

(6/2003 & 8/2003)

56 Chronology of Precondemnation Events

57 Agua Fria Planning Process

58 Wild Wind Ranch Physical and Natural Constraints

59 Merced County Guidance Package Plan (3/93)

60 Merced County Department of Planning, Community Specific Plan

Preliminary Draft for the Villages of Laguna San Luis (4/94)

61 Specific Urban Development Plan Diagram for Villages of Laguna San Luis

62 Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Villages of

Laguna San Luis Community Specific Plan (2/95)

63 Merced County Year 2000 General Plan

64 San Luis Water District Resolution 94-677 Requesting LAFCO to annex 

Agua Fria the Annexation

65 San Luis Water District Resolution 96-715 certifying the Final EIR for

Annexation

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 21 of 33
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

66 Agua Fria Final and Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Agua Fria

Urban Village Inclusion

67 Agua Fria’s Specific Urban Development Plan Diagram

68 U.S.F.W.S. EIR Comment Letter (5/94)

69 California Department of Fish & Game EIR Comment Letter (7/94)

70 Nicholson Letter (9/1995) and Memo (5/96)

71 Coxey Letter to Campion (11/2003)

72 S.L.W.D. Letter to Merced County Planning (6/94)

73 2001 Villages “call” on Campion

74 LAFCO’s Certificate of Completion Authorizing the Agua Fria Annexation

(1/96)

75 State Water Resources Control Board’s Water Rights Order for Agua Fria

(6/97)

76 United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation’s approval of

Agua Fria inclusion into the District and the CVP (10/98)

77 San Luis Water District’s Water Supply Assessment for the Villages of

Laguna San Luis Project (9/2004)

78 Gimmy Agua Fria Valuation of Taking Chart (Based on 3,220 Acres)

79 Gimmy Agua Fria Valuation Taking Chart (Based on 4,520 Acres)

80 Gimmy Agua Fria Pre-Condemnation Damages Chart

81 Comparable Water Sales Map

82 Gimmy Comparable Sales Map

83 Explanatory Analysis of Comparables

84 Gimmy Comparable Sales Summary

85 Gimmy Previous Experience Map

86 Sage EMF Experience Chart

87 Sage Visual Impact Experience Chart

88 Before Condition Map

89 Before Condition (EMF)

90 Before Condition (Visual)

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 22 of 33
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

91 After Condition with Path 15

92 EMF (2,505 Amps.)

93 EMF (4,660 Amps.)

94 EMF (4,008 Amps.)

95 EMF (5,826 Amps.)

96 EMF Overlay Map (2,505 Amps.)

97 EMF Overlay Map (4,008 Amps.)

98 Tri-Valley News Articles

99 Pleasanton route re-alignment order and supporting documents by PUC

100 Jefferson-Martin News Articles

101 Jefferson route re-alignment order and supporting documents by PUC

102 Sacramento Bee Article

103 Prospective Homeowner Letter

104 Prospective Buyer Developer Letter

105 Perception of Transmission Line (International Electric Transmission

Perception Project)

106 P.G.&E. EMF Bill Insert

107 Title 5 Setbacks

108 Draft EIS/EIR Volumes 2B and 2C Los Banos-Gates Supporting

Environmental Report (11/86)

109 Supplemental Draft EIR for Los Banos-Gates Project (10/2001)

110 Visually Impaired Lands and Photo Locations

111 Property Photos (29)

112 WAPA specification and construction plans

113 Declaration of Taking

114 Construction of Path 15 photos

115 Rights acquired by government

116 Overall route map of Path 15 project

117 Path 15 loading data

118 PG&E/WAPA correspondence w/Campion

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 23 of 33
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

IX. Discovery Documents To Be Used At Trial (Answers To Interrogatories And

Responses To Requests For Admissions

Plaintiff identifies defendant’s responses to interrogatory nos. 1 through 10.

X. Further Discovery or Motions

As set forth in section 5, above, plaintiff filed four pretrial motions seeking to exclude

various components of defendant’s intended trial presentation. The parties await the court’s

written ruling with respect to each of these motions. In addition, both plaintiff and defendant

intend to move in limine to exclude any and all evidence defendant has failed to previously

disclose pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e) and 37(c), as well as to exclude

evidence of settlement communications per FRE 408. 

XI. Stipulations

See undisputed facts, above.

XII. Amendments/Dismissals

None at this time.

XIII. Settlement Negotiations

The parties have previously discussed the possibility of settlement. The parties believe

settlement does not appear feasible at this time. 

XIV. Agreed Statement

Presentation of the Action through an Agreed Statement of Facts does not appear to be

feasible in this action beyond those undisputed facts listed in this report.

XV. Separate Trial Of Issues

None.

XVI. Impartial Experts - Limitation Of Experts

Plaintiff filed no less than four pretrial motions in this action, each of which addressing

the extent defendant’s intended expert testimony should or should not be presented at trial. The

parties await the Court’s rulings regarding each of these motions. Accordingly, the parties are

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 24 of 33
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

not in a position to determine at this time the extent Court-appointed expert witnesses are

advisable in this case.

XVII. Attorneys’ Fees

Defendant’s answer requests attorneys’ fees in this action. The United States maintains

that the propriety of attorneys’ fees should be addressed after trial. Prior to the issuance of

attorneys’ fees, if any, the Court must determine matters including the identity of the prevailing

party, as well as the extent that the United States’ position was substantially justified. (28

U.S.C. §2412). The Court must also determine, to the extent fees are deemed justified, whether

an exception to the $125/hr cap is justified, as well as the extent defendant incurred such fees in

this action. Plaintiff maintains that any claim for attorney's fees should be decided by post-trial

or post-judgment motion to the Court. 

21. Special Handling of Trial Exhibits

None required.

22. Miscellaneous

Plaintiff intends to call a witness from Western Area Power Administration to describe

the extent of the land taken, introduce maps of the easement areas, and provide the specifications

of the line constructed through the Campion property. Plaintiff wishes to call this witness as part

of its case in chief. Defendant contends this witness should be called out of order at the opening

of testimony, as is the procedure in California condemnation cases.

XVIII. Further Trial Preparation

A. Final Witness List

The parties are ordered to file and serve their final list of witnesses by Friday,

November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. Additionally, at that time Plaintiffs shall disclose the order of

witnesses so that Defendants will be prepared for cross-examination.

Except upon the showing set forth above in section VII, a party may not add

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 25 of 33
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

witnesses to the final list of witnesses, or to any other updated witness list, who are not disclosed

in this Order in Section VII.

B. Trial Briefs

The parties are directed to file and serve a Trial Brief by Friday, November 4,

2005 at 12:00 p.m. Local Rule 16-285. The parties need not include in the Trial Brief any issue

that is adequately addressed in a motion in limine, or in an opposition brief to a motion in limine. 

Any response to a Trial Brief shall be filed and served by Monday, November 7, 2005, at 12:00

p.m. 

C. Duty of Counsel to Pre-Mark Exhibits

The parties are ordered to confer no later than Friday, November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m.

for purposes of pre-marking and examining each other’s exhibits. All joint exhibits must be premarked with numbers preceded by the designation JT/-- (e.g., JT/1, JT/2). All of Plaintiffs’

exhibits shall be pre-marked with numbers. All of Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with

letters.

1. Counsel shall create four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits in binders as follows:

(a) Two sets of binders to be delivered to Courtroom Clerk Harold Nazaroff

Friday, November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m., one for use by the Courtroom Clerk and the other for

the court; and

(b) One set for each counsel’s own use.

If the parties desire, they may have a fifth set of binders to be used for the

purposes of questioning witnesses.

2. Counsel are to confer and make the following determination with respect to each

proposed exhibit to be introduced into evidence, and to prepare separate indexes - one listing

joint exhibits, and one listing each party’s separate exhibits:

(a) Duplicate exhibits, i.e., documents which both sides desire to introduce into

evidence, shall be marked as a joint exhibit, and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits shall

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 26 of 33
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

be listed on a separate index, and shall be admitted into evidence on the motion of any party,

without further foundation.

(b) As to exhibits that are not jointly offered, and to which there is no objection to

introduction, those exhibits will likewise be appropriately marked, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 or

Defendants’ Exhibit A, and shall be listed in the offering party’s index in a column entitled

“Admitted In Evidence.” Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction and motion of the

party, without further foundation.

(c) Those exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation shall be

marked appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 - For Identification, or Defendants’ Exhibit B -

For Identification, and indexed in a column entitled “Objection Foundation.”

(d) Remaining exhibits as to which there are objections to admissibility not solely

based on a lack of foundation shall likewise be marked appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 3 -

For Identification or Defendants’ Exhibit C - For Identification, and indexed in a third column

entitled “Other Objection” on the offering party’s index.

 3. Each separate index shall consist of the exhibit number or letter, a brief

description of the exhibit, and the three columns outlined above, as demonstrated in the example

below:

 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

 ADMITTED OBJECTION OTHER 

EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE FOUNDATION OBJECTION

 

Two sets of the completed joint index and the separate indexes shall be delivered

to the Courtroom Clerk with the two sets of binders.

The court has no objection to counsel using copies. However, the copies must be

legible. If any document is offered into evidence that is partially illegible, the court may sua

sponte exclude it from evidence.

D. Discovery Documents

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 27 of 33
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

By Friday, November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m., each party shall file a list of all

discovery documents the party intends to use at trial. The list shall indicate whether each

discovery document has previously been lodged with the Clerk. If the discovery document has

not been previously lodged, the party shall so lodge the document with the Courtroom Clerk by 

Friday, November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m.

E. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

The hearing for motions in limine will be held on Wednesday, November 2, 2005,

at 10:00 a.m. In addition to addressing any filed motions in limine, at that time the court will

also settle, to the extent possible, any other matter pertaining to the conduct of the trial.

Counsel are expected to be fully cognizant of the legal issues involved in the case

by the date of the hearing for motions in limine.

F. Morning Conferences During Trial

During the trial, it is the obligation of counsel to meet with the court each morning

to advise the court and opposing counsel as to what documents are proposed to be put into

evidence that have not previously been admitted by stipulation, court order, or otherwise ruled

upon. The court will rule on those documents, to the extent possible, prior to the commencement

of trial each day out of the presence of the jury. If the ruling depends upon the receipt of

testimony, the court will rule as requested upon the receipt of such testimony.

The court shall consider any other legal matter at morning conferences as well. 

The court does not wish to recess the trial to hear legal argument outside of the presence of the

jury, and proper preparation by counsel will eliminate the need for that result.

G. Order Of Witnesses

In order to make the trial operate efficiently and smoothly, each counsel has the

continuing obligation to advise opposing counsel as to what witnesses he or she intends to call at

each trial session.

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 28 of 33
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

H. Voir Dire

The parties shall file proposed voir dire questions, if any, by Friday, November 4,

2005 at 12:00 p.m.

Additionally, in order to aid the court in the proper voir dire examination of the

prospective jurors, counsel are directed to lodge with the court on the first morning of trial a list

of the prospective witnesses they expect to call, omitting any witness listed in this Pretrial Order

whom the party no longer intend to call. This list shall contain the names of the each witness,

and the business and/or home address of each witness.

I. Proposed Jury Instructions

The parties shall file proposed jury instructions by Friday, November 4, 2005 at

12:00 p.m., along with a copy of the proposed instructions on a 3-1/2 inch computer disc,

preferably formatted for WordPerfect 8.

All proposed jury instructions shall be in duplicate. One set shall indicate the

party proposing the instruction, with each instruction numbered or lettered, shall cite supporting

authority, and shall include the customary “Given, Given as Modified, or Refused,” showing the

court’s action with regard to each instruction. The other set shall be an exact copy of the first set,

but shall be a “clean” copy that does not contain the identification of the offering party,

supporting authority, or reference to the court’s disposition of the proposed instruction.

The parties are ordered to confer immediately after the Friday, November 4, 2005

at 12:00 p.m. to determine which instructions they agree should be given. As soon as possible

thereafter, the parties shall submit a list of joint, unopposed instructions. As to those instructions

to which the parties dispute, the court will conduct its jury instruction conference during trial at a

convenient time.

J. Proposed Verdict Form

Each party shall file a proposed verdict form by Friday, November 4, 2005 at

12:00 p.m.

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 29 of 33
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

K. Use Of Videotapes

Any party wishing to use a videotape for any purpose during trial shall lodge a

copy of the videotape with the Courtroom Clerk on Friday, November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. If a

written transcript of audible words on the tape is available, the court requests that the transcript

be lodged with the court, solely for the aid of the court.

L. Use of Videotapes

If counsel intends to use a laptop computer for presentation of evidence, they shall

contact the courtroom deputy clerk at least one week prior to trial. The courtroom deputy clerk

will then arrange a time for counsel to bring the laptop to the courtroom, and meet with a

representative of the Information and Technology Department and receive a brief training session

on how counsel’s equipment interacts with the court’s audio/visual equipment. If counsel

intends to use PowerPoint, the resolution should be set no higher than 1024 x 768 when

preparing the presentation. 

M. Agreed Summary Of The Case

The parties shall lodge with the Courtroom Clerk a joint agreed summary of the

case, briefly outlining the positions of the parties by Friday, November 4, 2005 at 12:00 p.m. 

The summary will be read to the jury panel at the outset of the trial solely for the purposes of

assisting in the jury selection process. The contents of the summary shall not be deemed to be

evidence or an admission or stipulation by a party as to any contested fact or issue.

XIX. Objections to Pretrial Order

Any party may, within six calendar days after the date of service of this order, file

and serve written objections to any of the provisions of this order. Local Rule 16-283. Such

objection shall specify the requested corrections, additions or deletions.

XX. Rules of Conduct During Trial

A. General Rules

1. All participants in the trial shall conduct themselves in a civil manner. There

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 30 of 33
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

shall be no hostile interchanges between any of the participants.

2. All oral presentations shall be made from the podium, unless otherwise

permitted by the court.

3. Sidebar conferences are discouraged. Legal arguments or discussion of issues

outside the presence of the jury should be done during recesses.

4. Counsel shall advise their respective clients and witnesses not to discuss any

aspect of the case in the common areas of the courthouse accessible to the jurors, such as

the lobby, the elevators, the hallways and the cafeteria.

B. Jury Selection

1. The court will conduct voir dire to be supplemented by any written questions

submitted by counsel prior to trial and after the court has concluded its questioning of the

jury panel. In some circumstances, the court may allow brief direct questioning by

counsel.

C. Opening Statements

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the opening statement. However,

any proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before opening statement.

D. Case in Chief

1. Counsel shall have his/her witnesses readily available to testify so that there

are no delays in the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact.

2. At the close of each trial day, counsel shall disclose his/her anticipated

witnesses and order of presentation for the next day, so that any scheduling or evidentiary

issues may be raised at that time.

E. Witnesses

1. Before approaching a witness, counsel shall secure leave of court to approach

the witness.

2. Before approaching a witness with a writing, counsel shall first show the

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 31 of 33
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

writing to opposing counsel.

F. Exhibits

1. All exhibits shall be marked and identified in accordance with the instructions

in the Pretrial Order.

2. An exhibit shall not be published to the jury until it has been admitted into

evidence and counsel has secured leave of court to publish the exhibit.

3. The court usually will conduct an on the record review of the exhibits that

have been admitted in evidence at the conclusion of each party’s case in chief and after

each party has rested its entire case.

G. Objections

1. No speaking objections or arguments are permitted in the presence of the

jury. Counsel shall state the specific legal ground(s) for the objection, and the court will

rule based upon the ground(s) stated. The court will permit counsel to argue the matter at

the next recess.

2. The court will not assume that any objection made also implies with it a

motion to strike an answer that has been given. Therefore, counsel who has made an

objection, and who also wishes to have an answer stricken, shall also specifically move to

strike the answer.

H. Closing Argument

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the closing argument. However,

any proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before closing argument.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE

GROUNDS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE DISMISSAL

OF THIS ACTION OR ENTRY OF DEFAULT, ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL

AS ON ANY PARTY WHO CAUSES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 32 of 33
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

h2ehf UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06064-AWI -LJO Document 131 Filed 11/02/05 Page 33 of 33