UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

 _________________

Satanic Temple, et al., )

 )

 Plaintiffs, ) CV 18-00621-PHX-DGC

 )

 vs. ) Phoenix, Arizona

 ) January 13, 2020

City of Scottsdale, et al., ) 3:57 p.m.

 ) 

 Defendants. )

_____________________________________)

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

Official Court Reporter:

Patricia Lyons, RMR, CRR

Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Ste. 312

401 West Washington Street, SPC 41

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2150

(602) 322-7257

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared with Computer-Aided Transcription

 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

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 25
 2

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Plaintiffs: 

Kezhaya Law, PLC

By: MATTHEW A. KEZHAYA, ESQ. (telephonically)

1202 NE McClain Rd 

Bentonville, AR 72712

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC

By: STUART P. de HAAN, ESQ.

101 E. Pennington St., Ste. 201

Tucson, AZ 85701

For the Defendants:

Dickinson Wright, PLLC

By: SCOT L. CLAUS, ESQ.

By: HOLLY M. ZOE, ESQ. 

By: VAIL C.B. CLOAR, ESQ. 

By: ALEXANDRA CRANDALL, ESQ. 

1850 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1400

Phoenix, AZ 85004

 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

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 25
 3

P R O C E E D I N G S

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: This is case number CV 18-621,

Satanic Temple, et al., versus City of Scottsdale. On for

final pretrial conference.

Counsel, please announce for the record.

MR. de HAAN: Stu de Haan for the plaintiffs

Satanic Temple and Michelle Shortt.

MR. KEZHAYA: This is Matt Kezhaya. And I have with

me Josie Graves and Sonia Kezhaya, a couple assistants of mine

as well. 

MR. CLAUS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Scot Claus,

Dickinson Wright. Along with me is Vail Cloar, Holly Zoe, and

Alexandra Crandall on behalf of the City of Scottsdale.

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.

Okay, Counsel, let's just run through items I have on

my list first and then I'll see if you have other matters to

address.

The trial is scheduled for January 22 and 23 as a

bench trial. You indicated in your final pretrial order that

there are 11 hours total to be used by the two parties. We

can get that done in two days. We'll get five-and-a-half

hours of trial time in each day.

You can be here at 8:45 on the morning of

1 5 : 5 8 : 3 6 January 22nd, we'll start at 9 o'clock. We'll go till noon,

1 5 : 5 7 : 2 7 1

 2

 3

 4

1 5 : 5 7 : 3 5 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 5 : 5 7 : 4 7 10

11

12

13

14

1 5 : 5 8 : 0 3 15

16

17

18

19

1 5 : 5 8 : 1 7 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 25
 4

take a one-hour break, and then go until 4:00 or 4:30, however

long we need to to get five-and-a-half hours in, with a

15-minute break in the morning and a 15-minute break in the

afternoon.

So the days we have set aside for trial will be able

to accommodate the time that you identified.

I've read the final pretrial order. I'm going to

adopt it as the final pretrial order in this case and

therefore, as you know, under Rule 16(e) it will be the

blueprint for the trial and issues or evidence not set forth

in the final pretrial order can only be considered if a

failure to do so would create manifest injustice under

Rule 16(e). So this is the guide for the trial.

Is the rule of exclusion going to be invoked by

either side?

MR. CLAUS: It's going to be by the defendants,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. My view of the rule is it applies

in the courtroom and outside of the courtroom, even though

there are a few court decisions that say otherwise. Meaning

witnesses outside of the courtroom shouldn't be told what

witnesses in the courtroom are saying.

That does not preclude you as counsel from preparing

witnesses to testify, but they shouldn't be given any sort of

1 6 : 0 0 : 0 4 running description of what other witnesses are saying in the

1 5 : 5 8 : 4 0 1

 2

 3

 4

1 5 : 5 8 : 5 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 5 : 5 9 : 1 0 10

11

12

13

14

1 5 : 5 9 : 3 4 15

16

17

18

19

1 5 : 5 9 : 4 5 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 25
 5

case.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to quash the

subpoena of Mr. de Haan. Do you wish to say anything with

respect to that from the defendants?

MR. CLAUS: Well, one, the plaintiffs, under Rule 45,

don't have standing to file a motion to quash a subpoena. The

subpoenaed party has to file a motion to quash a subpoena.

But we plan on filing a written response by Wednesday,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'd like to hear your response now.

MR. CLAUS: Well, okay. The response is that the

motion to quash isn't proper because the motion to quash

wasn't filed by the subpoenaed party. The motion to quash is

improper because it assumes as a necessary predicate that the

only questions that are going to be propounded to the witness

are questions that will call for privileged communications.

And that is not the purpose of naming Mr. de Haan as a

witness.

In point of fact, Mr. de Haan was not identified as a

percipient witness in the MIDP responses filed by the

plaintiffs, submitted by the plaintiffs. Mr. de Haan was not

revealed to be a percipient witness until Ms. Shortt was

sitting for her deposition as a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent for the

Adversarial Truth LLC and for the unincorporated association,

1 6 : 0 1 : 3 5 which only took place after we objected to Ms. Shortt and the

1 6 : 0 0 : 0 6 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 0 0 : 2 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 0 0 : 3 6 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 0 0 : 5 1 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 0 1 : 0 8 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 5 of 25
 6

unincorporated association and the named plaintiff being

proper parties.

It was only at that deposition that Ms. Shortt

produced a document which we had marked as Exhibit 50 in

our -- I'm sorry, Exhibit 76, it was marked as Exhibit 50 in

the deposition -- Exhibit 76 in our exhibits, which is the

only stipulated exhibit, interestingly, that the plaintiff has

stipulated to.

Exhibit 76 was disclosed during the deposition, which

shows that Mr. de Haan was not only the organizer for

Adversarial Truth LLC. He is a co-chapter head for

Adversarial Truth LLC, and then Ms. Shortt disclosed for the

first time in her deposition that Mr. de Haan was the

organizer of the meetings for Adversarial Truth LLC and for

the unincorporated association of persons that are the

plaintiff in this case, that Mr. de Haan took an active role

in promoting the organization, that Mr. de Haan was a

proponent for seeking to give the invocation for the City of

Scottsdale.

None of these facts were disclosed by the plaintiffs

as part of their MIDP response. None of these facts were

disclosed at all until the deposition of Ms. Shortt as the

Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. 

It was during those depositions and preparation for

1 6 : 0 3 : 1 6 those depositions as well that they mentioned the documentary

1 6 : 0 1 : 4 3 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 0 1 : 5 6 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 0 2 : 1 5 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 0 2 : 3 8 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 0 2 : 5 4 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 6 of 25
 7

Hail Satan. It was during the deposition actually of

Douglas Misicko, who was the 30(b)(6) deponent for the

United Federation of Churches, LLC and the Satanic Temple,

Inc. Mr. Misicko identified Hail Satan as a documentary that

reflected the beliefs of that organization or those

organizations.

Upon reviewing Hail Satan, Mr. de Haan appears as a

proponent for the beliefs in the Satanic Temple not as a

religion, but as a, quote, sociopolitical counter movement,

end quote. He is a percipient witness not being called for

any attorney-client privileged information, not being called

for any purpose other than the defendants having discovered

his role as a percipient witness in the litigation during the

depositions of the Rule 30(b)(6) designees.

So that's response to the motion to quash,

Your Honor. I'll be happy to any answer any questions you

have.

THE COURT: When was Ms. Shortt's 30(b)(6) deposition

taken?

MR. CLAUS: Ms. Shortt's 30(b)(6) deposition was

taken September 26th, 2019. And that was also the date of --

September 26th, 2019, and that was also the date of the

deposition of the unincorporated association of persons.

THE COURT: Was she deposed during the previous

1 6 : 0 4 : 5 7 discovery period?

1 6 : 0 3 : 2 0 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 0 3 : 3 8 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 0 4 : 0 2 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 0 4 : 2 4 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 0 4 : 3 4 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 25
 8

MR. CLAUS: She was not, Your Honor.

THE COURT: When did you first indicate to

Mr. de Haan that you wanted him to be a witness in the case?

MR. CLAUS: December 13th, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that when you served the subpoena?

MR. CLAUS: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you agree that serving the subpoena,

if it's allowed, and if Mr. de Haan is called as a witness in

the case, that would interfere with his ability to serve as

counsel in the case?

MR. CLAUS: We agree that the ethical rules

suggest -- not -- more than suggest. The ethical rules

promulgated by the Supreme Court indicate that there are many

times in which serving as both counsel for an entity and

serving as a trial witness should be avoided. But they should

be avoided by the lawyer who knows that the lawyer is a

percipient witness. And should not prejudice the other party

who needs to adduce that trial testimony in order to support

the primary defense.

The rules of the Supreme Court, the comments to the

rules, to the ethical rules, do suggest that there are ways to

reconcile that conflict. And Mr. Kezhaya is counsel of record

in this case and Mr. Kezhaya can act as counsel for the

plaintiffs in this matter if Mr. de Haan believes it's -- it

1 6 : 0 6 : 4 1 is Mr. de Haan's responsibility to both avoid that conflict

1 6 : 0 4 : 5 9 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 0 5 : 1 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 0 5 : 3 0 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 0 5 : 5 0 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 0 6 : 1 6 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 8 of 25
 9

and reconcile that conflict.

Given the testimony that we seek to adduce in this

case, because we are not seeking the introduction of testimony

regarding Mr. de Haan's counsel to his client, Mr. de Haan's

recommendations to his client, we're simply seeking testimony

from Mr. de Haan about his activity in forming the entity, in

creating the entity, and his statements that underlie and

undermine the essential predicate for the establishment clause

claim, which is that this thing, the Satanic Temple, is a

religion when, according to Mr. de Haan, it is a

sociopolitical countermovement.

So, yes, Your Honor, there is a potential conflict,

but it is Mr. de Haan's conflict to have recognized and

Mr. de Haan's conflict to reconcile, and it is not an

irreconcilable conflict.

THE COURT: I have seen in a previous exhibit in this

case, I assume it was as part of the summary judgment motion,

a document that was -- I can't remember if it was a screen

shot from the Satanic Temple website. But there was an

article there, I think, as well showing Mr. de Haan and

Ms. Shortt together in the photograph and making very clear

that he was fully involved in the organization and operation

of the Satanic Temple.

Surely you're not suggesting that his involvement has

1 6 : 0 8 : 3 2 been a secret that you didn't discover until September of

1 6 : 0 6 : 4 6 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 0 7 : 0 3 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 0 7 : 2 9 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 0 7 : 5 2 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 0 8 : 1 5 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 9 of 25
 10

2019, are you?

MR. CLAUS: I know exactly the photo about which you

are talking about, Your Honor. That photo identified

Mr. de Haan as the lawyer for the Satanic Temple. It was the

photo of Mr. de Haan and Ms. Shortt before they appeared on a

local Fox newscast. And that photo identified Mr. de Haan not

as an organizer of an LLC, not as a co-chapter head, not as a

media liaison, not as someone who made statements that

Satanic Temple isn't a religion but a sociopolitical

countermovement. That photograph, the caption for that

photograph, I'm almost certain, identified Mr. de Haan the way

Mr. de Haan has identified himself for the Court, which is

simply the lawyer representing Ms. Shortt and the

Satanic Temple.

And so Mr. de Haan's role as a lawyer has certainly

not been a secret. What was not disclosed and I have,

Your Honor, if I may approach, I can give it to you, the

document that was not disclosed until Ms. Shortt's deposition.

What was not disclosed was Mr. de Haan's role as a

percipient witness, not simply his role as a lawyer. So it

would be -- so the fact that there is that photograph that

exists is undeniable. But that photograph led us to assume

the very thing that Mr. de Haan didn't disclose, that he was

the lawyer for the entity and the lawyer for Ms. Shortt and

1 6 : 1 0 : 0 8 not an organizer, not a percipient witness in holding

1 6 : 0 8 : 3 5 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 0 8 : 4 7 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 0 9 : 1 2 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 0 9 : 2 3 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 0 9 : 4 2 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 10 of 25
 11

meetings, not a percipient witness in seeking the invocation.

Those are the things that were not disclosed, Your Honor, that

were never disclosed. Those are the things that we didn't

discover until the end of September.

We tried to -- we tried to formulate a strategy that

would assist Mr. de Haan in avoiding the potential conflict

between his role and a percipient witness and his role as

advocate, but the more we investigated after learning about

the existence of this affiliation agreement during

Ms. Shortt's deposition, the more we came to the conclusion

that that wasn't possible.

There's one other thing I want to address,

Your Honor, Which is an assertion in the moving paper,

Your Honor, that we did not inform the plaintiffs until two

days before the final pretrial statement was due that we would

not stipulate to not call Mr. de Haan as a witness. That is

simply not accurate.

We had an e-mail exchange on December 23, 2019,

followed up with a conference call on December 26, 2019. I

have both the e-mail and the calendar for the conference call

if the Court would like it.

But we did not wait until two days before the final

pretrial statement was due to inform the plaintiffs that we

would not be able to reach an agreement. 

1 6 : 1 1 : 5 5 Would you like those e-mails, Your Honor?

1 6 : 1 0 : 1 4 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 0 : 2 8 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 0 : 5 1 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 1 1 : 0 9 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 1 1 : 3 3 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 11 of 25
 12

THE COURT: No. I would not.

I mean, I accept what you've said. I don't need to

read them.

All right, Mr. de Haan, do you want to address this

issue?

MR. de HAAN: Yes, Your Honor.

First of all, the deposition that was taken of

Michelle Shortt and Doug Misicko was for the purpose of

organizational standing. The whole purpose of those

depositions was to see what the organizational structure was

of the church in Salem, of the Temple chapter here in Arizona.

And at no point after a year that discovery's been closed have

I been a named witness or even suspected that because I never

asked for the invocation, I never was going to give the

invocation. My role with the organization for four years has

been as a legal advisor, both personally and for the

organization, since the duration of my tenure there.

Of course, since I'm involved with the temple, I have

had other duties, such as a spokesperson, just because I am an

attorney for the organization and things like that.

But certainly throughout this two-year litigation, it

wasn't until this deposition, this 30(b)(6) deposition, that

the organizational structure came out that it was something

either side thought was relevant.

1 6 : 1 3 : 1 4 So for two years this wasn't relevant. And now I'm

1 6 : 1 1 : 5 8 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 2 : 0 7 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 2 : 2 1 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 1 2 : 4 4 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 1 2 : 5 9 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 12 of 25
 13

repeatedly being misquoted of something that I said in a

documentary. Apparently he didn't watch it with subtitles

because that's not what I said.

It's also not here or there. It's not relevant

because we have the founder of the Satanic Temple,

Doug Misicko, who's going to testify as to the beliefs, since

that could be a trial issue for the establishment clause. We

have Michelle Shortt to talk about her personal religious

beliefs and the invocation. And also, the City has called the

person who originally sent the e-mail requesting the

invocation, which is Jeremy Zarzycki, who has also been

subpoenaed.

So I don't see any reason that I can be called for

any other purpose than to try to get me off this case when

nothing I have to say is even relevant to the beliefs of the

Satanic Temple, one party; the beliefs of Michelle Shortt,

another plaintiff; and my role as a four-year lawyer for the

group. I mean, it's inconceivable that they would avoid some

kind of attorney-client privilege in any of these situations

or other ones, and I've been involved in other lawsuits that

are similar but not quite this situation.

And none of this was talked about in the documentary.

Nothing about this litigation has anything to do with that

documentary.

1 6 : 1 4 : 3 4 That being said, there's also the undue burden aspect

1 6 : 1 3 : 1 8 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 3 : 2 9 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 3 : 4 3 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 1 3 : 5 9 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 1 4 : 2 1 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 13 of 25
 14

that we're about ten days before trial and we're going to have

to either find other trial counsel or basically re-prepare a

lot of these issues.

So, Your Honor, I think because of the way this

happened, because subject to the 30(b)(6) motion on somebody

else a year after the close of discovery, and the fact that

I'm not a relevant witness to this particular litigation, I

would ask that this be quashed.

THE COURT: All right.

I'm going to quash the subpoena.

This is not a hard call, in my view. This case has

been pending for a couple of years. This information about

Mr. de Haan has been publicly available for a long time. The

fact that he would be served with a subpoena on December 13th

for a June 22nd trial just is unreasonable, in my view.

We are here a week before trial. I'm not going to

disqualify him from serving, which is what I would do, in

effect, if I allowed the subpoena to stand, and either force

the plaintiffs to go to trial without their lead counsel who

has been their lead counsel throughout the case or postpone

the trial. I'm not going to do that, particularly when

defendants clearly could have raised this issue much earlier

in the case, in my judgment.

In addressing factors under Rule 45(d)(3), the cases

1 6 : 1 5 : 5 5 say it is a balance in deciding whether or not it imposes an

1 6 : 1 4 : 3 7 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 4 : 4 6 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 5 : 0 0 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 1 5 : 2 0 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 1 5 : 3 9 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 14 of 25
 15

undue burden on a person, which includes a party.

I believe effectively disqualifying Mr. de Haan a

week before trial would impose an undue burden on the

plaintiffs in this case. And when I balance that tremendous

burden against the defendant's need for the information he can

present as a witness at trial, the burden clearly favors the

plaintiffs.

The factual description that the plaintiffs have

provided about what they're going to seek to obtain from

Mr. de Haan is word-for-word identical to the factual

description in the final pretrial order of what they're going

to obtain from Ms. Shortt, although there is more after that

from Ms. Shortt.

So I believe that sufficient information is

available. If there are documents that address this, those

might be admissible as well. But I am not going to disqualify

a counsel a week before trial, or even a month before trial if

the issue had come up back in December, when this case has

been going on for more than two years. Mr. de Haan's

involvement, in my view, has been not a secret.

The City clearly could have conducted discovery on

all of these issues, including the standing issues that

retained counsel raised after you came into the case. That

could have all been raised and ventilated much earlier in the

1 6 : 1 7 : 1 5 case by counsel if the City had chosen to do so. And it

1 6 : 1 5 : 5 8 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 6 : 1 2 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 6 : 2 8 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 1 6 : 4 2 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 1 7 : 0 0 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 15 of 25
 16

wasn't. And this is just too late and too unfair, in my view,

to go forward with that subpoena.

So I'm going to grant the motion to quash, which is

at Docket 78, and I'm going to deny as moot the motion to

quash, which is at Docket 77. It's the same motion, but one

didn't have an exhibit on it.

All right. Let's talk, then, about the motion in

limine which has been filed.

The defendants filed a motion in limine. The

plaintiffs responded. I typically don't allow replies on

motions in limine. But I'm interested in any additional

arguments you all wish to make on the motion in limine. I've

read both the motion and the response.

Let's start first with defense counsel, since it's

your motion. Are there other points you want to make?

MR. CLAUS: Well, Your Honor, there are points that

we need to amplify, which is that it's not simply that the

individual council members in their campaign literature do not

speak for and do not bind the City, but the nature of the

communications themselves, some of those communications have

no date on them whatsoever, so it's difficult to know when

those communications were created, if those communications

were disseminated or published.

But if those communications were made as campaign

1 6 : 1 8 : 5 6 literature after Mr. Biesemeyer made the decision to not allow

1 6 : 1 7 : 1 8 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 7 : 3 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 7 : 4 4 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 1 8 : 0 4 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 1 8 : 3 4 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 16 of 25
 17

the invocation by the organization identifying itself as the

Satanic Temple, then those communications make no fact of

consequence in this case more or less likely and are highly

and unfairly prejudicial to the defendants because they could

not, as a matter of time and as a matter of logic, have

impacted any decision.

More importantly, Your Honor, as we've established in

our papers, the City manager, Mr. Biesemeyer, was acting as

the City manager when he made the decision to deny the

invocation for lack of substantial connection to the City of

Scottsdale. It is wholly within the power, both by city

charter and by the undisputed testimony in this case, it was

wholly within the province of Mr. Biesemeyer, as the acting

City manager, to implement the practice of denying an

organization without a substantial connection to the City of

Scottsdale from give giving an invocation.

There is no testimony, there is no evidence, that he

spoke with the mayor, that he spoke with Ms. Littlefield, that

he spoke with Vice Mayor Smith at any time prior to making

that decision.

And the only testimony in this case is that no

council person and the mayor did not influence or direct

Mr. Biesemeyer to make that decision.

So to allow the testimony of -- or to compel the

1 6 : 2 0 : 3 7 testimony of individual council members when those council

1 6 : 1 9 : 0 3 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 1 9 : 2 0 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 1 9 : 4 0 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 0 : 0 2 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 0 : 1 9 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 17 of 25
 18

members outside of a duly agendized and noticed city council

meeting cannot speak on behalf of the City. To compel their

testimony based on nothing but conjecture is and of itself

unfairly highly prejudicial to the defendants and also

interferes with the orderly functioning of the Scottsdale City

government because now the mayor and the council people who

are supposed to be working for the City of Scottsdale have to

come here and testify, testify about things that have no basis

in fact that are purely the product of speculation and

conjecture and for which they cannot and did not, according to

all the evidence in this case, make a decision or impact the

decision.

So for those reasons, Your Honor, we would ask that

the Court order in limine that the campaign materials

identified by the plaintiffs be excluded from evidence and

that the mayor and council member, council member Klapp, the

only council member identified, not be permitted to testify in

this case.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to deny the motion.

I'll explain why I'm not going to deny the motion and that's

why I'm not going to take time to hear additional argument.

The defendants made clear in your motion and in other

filings in the case that Mr. Biesemeyer is the decision-maker,

the policy-maker with respect to this case. That's the

1 6 : 2 2 : 1 1 position of the defendants.

1 6 : 2 0 : 4 1 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 1 : 0 0 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 1 : 2 0 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 1 : 3 7 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 1 : 5 5 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 18 of 25
 19

In fact, on page 4 of the motion in limine,

defendants say unquestionably the final decision-maker with

respect to adhering to that practice, meaning the longstanding

policy the City is asserting, is Mr. Biesemeyer.

Later in the motion the defendants say Mr. Biesemeyer

was essentially the decision-making body. He was the

decision-maker whose intent, state of mind, or knowledge is

relevant. That's on page 7.

On page 7 the defendants also say, The policy-maker

is plainly Mr. Biesemeyer.

So the key question in this case is why did this

individual, Mr. Biesemeyer, make the decision that he did.

Because the City has identified him as the actor on behalf of

the City.

Evidence from city council members or the mayor is

relevant to the question of why Mr. Biesemeyer did what did.

It may not be persuasive, but it clearly is relevant under the

standard in Rule 401 and 402 because it may have a tendency to

make a fact in dispute more likely. Namely, that

Mr. Biesemeyer was acting because of the brouhaha that

developed when the public and the council learned that the

Satanic Temple was going to offer an invocation.

It is certainly circumstantial evidence that can be

considered as to why Mr. Biesemeyer took the action that he

1 6 : 2 3 : 4 4 did.

1 6 : 2 2 : 1 3 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 2 : 3 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 2 : 5 3 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 3 : 0 5 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 3 : 2 5 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 19 of 25
 20

The actions of the city council and the mayor do not

have to have been official actions on the part of the City to

be relevant facts as fact witnesses as to what was, in the

words of the defendants, the intent, state of mind, or

knowledge of Mr. Biesemeyer when he made the decision.

Their testimony is not akin to calling a legislator

to come into court and testify about the intent of

legislation, which the courts clearly don't allow. They are

fact witnesses about what was happening within the City of

Scottsdale and what Mr. Biesemeyer knew and why he acted the

way he did. It is not barred by Monell, in my view. There is

no dispute that his actions were an action for the City; the

defendants have said so. And the testimony of the council

members and the mayor are facts, evidence, relevant to why he

took the action that he did.

I'm not going to view them as official actions when

they're e-mailing people. I mean, plaintiffs may argue that

they are and I'll listen to that argument, but they're

relevant facts as to why Mr. Biesemeyer did what he did.

And it's not barred by Rule 403. It's relevant.

And, as you know, Rule 403 only precludes unfairly prejudicial

evidence that substantially outweighs the probative value. I

don't think this is unfairly prejudicial. The City will have

a full opportunity to explain what the council members or the

1 6 : 2 5 : 1 5 mayor said or did not say, the lack of evidence that they ever

1 6 : 2 3 : 4 4 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 4 : 0 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 4 : 1 7 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 4 : 4 1 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 4 : 5 8 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 20 of 25
 21

communicated to Mr. Biesemeyer. 

Unfairly prejudicial evidence under Rule 403 is

typically evidence that causes the fact finder to make a

decision based on something other than the evidence, like

emotion. That's not going to be the case here.

The defendants will have a full and fair opportunity

to address this evidence. If it's otherwise admissible. I'm

not ruling it's admissible because there might be other

objections like hearsay, I don't know. But my conclusion is

it's relevant, it's not barred by Rule 403. It may not be

persuasive. I won't know that until I hear it. But I can't

conclude that it's inadmissible under those rules. So I'm

going to deny the motion in limine.

All right. Those are the matters that I needed to

address today.

From the plaintiffs, do you have matters that you

want to raise that we need to address before trial?

MR. de HAAN: Your Honor, as far as the exhibits --

THE COURT: Stay at the mic, would you. It's harder

to hear up here than it would seem.

MR. de HAAN: As far as the exhibit objections, I

imagine we'll handle that at the trial.

THE COURT: Yeah, those are preserved in the final

pretrial order. I don't rule on those ahead of time. I'll

1 6 : 2 6 : 3 3 rule on those during trial. And if an objection is preserved

1 6 : 2 5 : 1 9 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 5 : 3 1 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 5 : 4 8 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 6 : 0 7 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 6 : 2 1 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 21 of 25
 22

in the final pretrial order, then it can be asserted at the

time of the exhibit or the testimony and I'll rule on it at

that time.

MR. de HAAN: Okay. That's all. We have no motions

in limine other than that motion to quash.

THE COURT: All right.

Defense counsel, do you have other matters you want

to raise?

MR. CLAUS: Just a couple of housekeeping matters,

Your Honor.

One, we're going to bring in a rolling cart so we can

put notebooks. I just wanted to apprise the Court of that.

And two, a question for the Court. It will be quiet

and it will not interfere with any witness testimony, but it

is helpful to have a small portable printer in court so that

if we need to print something out, we can. But I wanted to

ask.

THE COURT: I would say no if this was a jury trial,

but it's a bench trial so that's all right.

MR. CLAUS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Even though my staff might disagree with

me. I think that's okay. If it's running too loud, we'll

turn it off.

MR. CLAUS: I understand.

1 6 : 2 7 : 3 7 And finally, Your Honor, your order does not ask for

1 6 : 2 6 : 3 6 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 6 : 4 4 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 6 : 5 2 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 7 : 1 0 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 7 : 2 5 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 22 of 25
 23

a trial memoranda separate from the proposed findings of fact

and conclusions of law. I just wanted to make sure you didn't

want trial memoranda.

THE COURT: That's right. I will, I haven't yet, but

I will read your proposed findings and conclusions before we

start trial next week. So I will be familiar with that.

We'll decide at the end of the trial whether or not

we need posttrial briefing. I usually try to avoid that

because I try to make the decision right after the close of

trial rather than wait a couple of weeks, because I forget

half of what I knew in that two-week span and have to go back

and relearn it. But if there's a tough legal issue on which

we need briefing, we'll do that after the trial. But I will

have read all of those findings and conclusions before we

start.

MR. CLAUS: And then, judgment as a matter of law,

Your Honor, it will be no surprise, I'm sure, to anyone that

we will likely file a judgment for a matter of law at the

close of the plaintiffs' case in chief. We will not have the

opportunity to have dailies. Is it sufficient to quote

testimony without citation to the transcript?

THE COURT: It is.

I will tell you that what I'm going to ask you to do

when we get to that point is to make the motion orally --

1 6 : 2 8 : 4 5 MR. CLAUS: Okay. 

1 6 : 2 7 : 3 9 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 7 : 4 5 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 8 : 0 1 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 8 : 1 8 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 8 : 2 9 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 23 of 25
 24

THE COURT: -- so that I can rule on it at that

point. I'm not going to want to take a break to go read

something.

But I'm going to take very detailed notes as we go

through. And so it's fair for you to assert what you believe

the evidence has said from your memory without a daily

transcript, and I'll compare that to my notes.

But, yeah, by all means you're welcome to make that

motion at the close of the plaintiffs' case and I'll either

rule on it or take it under advisement at that point.

MR. CLAUS: In light of the Court's ruling on the

motion to quash, Your Honor, we would like to make an offer of

proof regarding Mr. de Haan's proposed testimony. May we do

that in writing?

THE COURT: Sure. If you prefer, that's fine.

You're entitled to make that offer of proof to create a record

of what I didn't let you do, so that's fine.

MR. CLAUS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything else we need address?

MR. CLAUS: No, thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. We will see you on the morning of

the 22nd. Thank you all.

(End of transcript.)

* * * * *

1 6 : 2 8 : 4 5 1

 2

 3

 4

1 6 : 2 8 : 5 5 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

1 6 : 2 9 : 1 0 10

11

12

13

14

1 6 : 2 9 : 2 3 15

16

17

18

19

1 6 : 2 9 : 3 2 20

21

22

23

24

25

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 24 of 25
 25

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, PATRICIA LYONS, do hereby certify that I am duly

appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute

a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion

of the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled

cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript

was prepared under my direction and control, and to the best

of my ability.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 9th day of June,

2020.

 s/ Patricia Lyons, RMR, CRR

Official Court Reporter 

 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

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 119 Filed 06/09/20 Page 25 of 25