Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00238-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY

DISTRICT, a public utility

district, 

Plaintiff,

v.

1442.92 ACRES OF LAND IN ALPINE

COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; F. HEISE LAND &

LIVE STOCK COMPANY, INC., a Nevada

corporation; WILLIAM WEAVER; EDDIE

R. SNYDER; and CROCKETT

ENTERPRISES, INC., a Nevada

corporation,

Defendants.

NO. CIV. S 02-0238 MCE JFM

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Through the present motion, Plaintiff South Tahoe Public

Utility District (“District”) seeks to introduce ten (10)

additional exhibits at trial on grounds that said exhibits were

discovered subsequent to the Final Pretrial Order, which was

originally issued on September 1, 2004 (“PTO”). That Final

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 402 Filed 08/10/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Pretrial Order, as most recently amended on January 11, 2005

provides in pertinent part as follows:

Upon the post-pretrial discovery of exhibits, the attorneys

shall promptly inform the court and opposing counsel of the

existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider at

trial their admissibility. The exhibits will not be

received unless the proffering party demonstrates:

(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered

prior to pretrial;

(2) The Court and counsel were promptly informed of their

existence;

(3) Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s)(if physically

possible) to opposing counsel....

(PTO, 34:1-11).

According to the Declaration of Jeffery H. Speich executed

on July 11, 2005 and submitted along with the instant motion, the

existence of the exhibits now proposed to be introduced was

discovered during the several weeks preceding the date of that

declaration. Because the exhibits in question, which are

documents dating from October 28, 2004 to March 3, 2005, had not

even been prepared at the time of the September 1, 2004 PTO, they

could not reasonably have been discovered prior to that time. 

In opposing this Motion, Defendant Integrated Farms, LLC

(“Integrated Farms”) does not dispute that the proposed exhibits

were prepared after the PTO, or that the District satisfied the

remaining two prerequisites for the introduction of additional

exhibits as set forth in the PTO (namely, that the District

promptly informed this Court and counsel of the existence of the

exhibits and provided copies). Instead, Integrated Farms focuses

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 402 Filed 08/10/05 Page 2 of 4
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

solely on whether the proposed exhibits should in fact be

admitted into evidence.

In essence, then, Integrated Farms offers no opposition to

the instant motion. The fact that Integrated Farms has objected

to the actual introduction of the District’s additional exhibits

at trial does not bear upon whether they may be identified as

potential exhibits in the first instance. The District has

satisfied the criteria set forth in the PTO for that

identification. The PTO makes it clear that actual objections to

the exhibits themselves will be entertained at a later time; 

namely, when in limine motions are heard (PTO, 34:19-20).

Although in the present case in limine motions were heard by

the Court on October 25, 2004 at the request of the parties, even

though the October 12, 2004 trial date was vacated by the Court’s

Minute Order dated September 30, 2004, under the terms of the

initial PTO said motions were to have been heard on October 11,

2004, the day prior to trial. While the Third Amended Final

Pretrial Order filed January 11, 2005 continues to refer to any

objections to exhibits being heard simultaneously with the in

limine motions (which had already been heard at that time), the

provision of the Third Amended Final Pretrial Order dealing with

exhibit objections makes sense only if interpreted in accordance

with the original PTO, which established a hearing for said

objections the day before trial. Consequently, the Court

reserves ruling on Integrated Farms’ objections to any exhibits

offered by the District until that time.

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 402 Filed 08/10/05 Page 3 of 4
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 Because oral argument would not be of material assistance, 1

this matter was deemed suitable for decision without oral

argument. E.D. Local Rule 78-230(h).

4

Given the above, the District Motion to Introduce Additional

Exhibits at Trial is GRANTED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2005

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00238-MCE -JFM Document 402 Filed 08/10/05 Page 4 of 4