STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE WAKE COUNTY cf .- 2?5 SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 18 CVS 014001 COMMON CAUSE, et al. Plaintiffs, V. ORDER ON AND LEGISLATIVE Representative DAVID R. LEWIS, MOTIONS IN in his official capacity as Senior LIMINE REGARDING Chairman of the House Select ADMISSIBILITY OF Committee on Redistricting, et al., HOFELLER FILES Defendants. THIS MATTER comes before the undersigned three-judge panel upon Plaintiffs? Motion in Limine to Admit Certain Files of Dr. Thomas B. Hofeller, and Legislative Defendants? Motion in Limine to Exclude Files and Materials Produced by Stephanie Lizon. On June 21, 2019, Legislative Defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude from evidence all files produced in response to the subpoena sent by Plaintiffs to Stephanie Hofeller (hereinafter the ?Hofeller files?), arguing that Plaintiffs? counsel acquired the Hofeller files through allegedly unethical means, and that Plaintiffs cannot establish chain of custody and authenticity. Legislative Defendants seek, in the alternative, to exclude Plaintiffs? expert rebuttal reports and expert opinion testimony that rely upon the Hofeller files, or, in the final alternative, to continue the trial date to allow the parties another 45 days of expert discovery. On June 21, 2019, Plaintiffs also filed a corresponding motion in limine seeking to establish the admissibility of a portion of the Hofeller files. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to admit only those Hofeller files upon which Plaintiffs? experts lhave relied in their expert rebuttal reports. Those specific files are attached in Exhibits 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs? Opposition to Legislative Defendants? Motion to Exclude Files and Materials Produced by Stephanie Hofeller, filed on July 1, 2019. A hearing on the motions was held on July 2, 2019, and the matter was aken under advisement. After considering the motions in limine and the matters contained therein, as well as the parties? briefs, submissions, and arguments on the motion by those in attendance, and having reviewed the record proper, the Court, in its discretion, grants Plaintiffs? motion and denies Legislative Defendants? motion. ?The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.? N.C.G.S. 80-1, Rule 901(a). Testimony of a Witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to establish authenticity. .C.G.S. 80-1, Rule 901(b)(1). Additionally, if evidence is not susceptible to alteration, a detailed chain of custody need not be established. State v. Kistle, 59 NC). App. 724, 726, 297 626, 627 (1982). As to the issues of authentication and chain of custody raised by Legislative Defendants, the Court is satisfied that the evidence provided by Plaintiffs, including the deposition testimony of Stephanie Hofeller, is sufficient to properly authenticate the specific Hofeller files Plaintiffs seek to admit. Additionally, a detailed chain of custody need not be established because there is no evidence any of the Hofeller files Plaintiffs seek to admit have been altered. Legislative Defendants? concerns regarding the origin and acquisition of the files go to the weight of the evidence and do not preclude admission. The Court finds there are adequate grounds for admitting the specific Hofeller files relied upon by Plaintiffs? experts on the basis of authenticity and chain of custody, provided those files are relevant and not subject to exclusion by other rules of evidence. WHEREFORE, the Court, for the reasons stated herein and in the exercise of its discretion, hereby ORDERS that 'Plaintiffs? Motion in Limine is GRANTED and Legislative Defendants? Motion in Limine is DENIED. so ORDERED, this the sL(day of July, 2019. Paul C. Ridgeway, Suert udg ls/ Joseph N. Crosswhite Joseph N. Crosswhite, Superior Court Judge Isl Alma L. Hinton Alma L. Hinton, Superior Court Judge Certificate of Service The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served upon all parties by electronic mail, addressed as follows: Edwin M. Speas, Jr. Caroline P. Mackie Poyner Spruill LLP espeas@poyner5pruill.com Counsel for Common Cause, The North Carolina Democratic Party And the Individual Plaintiffs R. Stanton Jones David P. Gersch Elisabeth S. Theodore Daniel F. Jacobson Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Davidgersch@arnoldporter.com Counsel for Common Cause And for Individual Plaintiffs Mark E. Braden Richard Raile Trevor Stanley Katherine McKnight Elizabeth Scully Erica Prouty Baker Hostetler LLP mbraden@bakerlaw.com tstanley@bakerlaw.com eprouty@bakerlaw.com Attorneys for Legislative Defendants Marc E. Elias Aria C. Branch Abha Khanna Perkins Coie LLP melias@perkinscoie.com ABranch@perkinscoie.com akhanna@perkinscoie.com Counsel for Common Cause And the Individual Plaintiffs Phillip J. Strach Michael McKnight Alyssa Riggins Ogletree Deakins Phillip.strach@ogletree.com Michael.mcknight@ogletree.com Counsel for Legislative Defendants Stephanie A. Brennan Amar Majmundar PaulCox NC Department of Justice sbrennan@ncdoi.gov amajmundar@ncdoi.gov pcox@ncdoi.gov Counsel for the State of North Carolina and members of the State Board of Elections Katelyn Love NC State Board of Elections Counsel for the State Board of Elections This the 12th day ofJuly, 2019. John E. Branch, Ill Nathaniel J. Pencook Andrew D. Brown Shanahan Law Group PLLC Lbranch@shanahanlawgroup.com npencook@shanahanlawgroup.com abrown@shanahanlawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenors WW Kvellie Trial Court Administrator 10th Judicial District kellie.z.mvers@nccourts.org