Precision Locating v. Starkebaum – Hearing Transcript Excerpts (April 6, 2026; Filed October 27, 2026)

Accessible document transcript

[Excerpt PDF page 1 | Added source identification cover]
Selected April 6 2026 Hearing Transcript Pages

Precision Locating, LLC and Arvig Enterprises, Inc. v. Martin D. Starkebaum

Minnesota District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Otter Tail County

Court file 56-CV-25-198
Document index 230

Hearing date April 6, 2026

Filing date October 27, 2026

Original selected PDF pages 9, 10, 32, 33, 35, 36, 43, 65, 69, 70

Selected pages from the April 6, 2026 proceeding captioned Scheduling Conference and filed as
Index 230 on October 27, 2026.

This PDF contains this added cover followed by the selected original pages. It is an excerpt, not the
complete filing. The selected pages retain their original page contents, dimensions, and printed page
numbers.

Citation guide Cite the original printed page and line numbers for a hearing transcript. For an exhibit,
give its original PDF page and any internal printed page number. The appended pages have not been
renumbered. The first selected source page follows this cover; the full original-to-excerpt page map is
provided below.

Page map original 9 = excerpt 2; original 10 = excerpt 3; original 32 = excerpt 4; original 33 = excerpt 5; original 35 =
excerpt 6; original 36 = excerpt 7; original 43 = excerpt 8; original 65 = excerpt 9; original 69 = excerpt 10; original 70
= excerpt 11

Source file 230 - 2026_10_27 - Transcript.pdf

Source SHA-256
7d0021f3fa804385c9e365c9630a8aaa
6fb4fa901bd495a7b4ee94f36cecc98d

[Original PDF page 9 | Excerpt PDF page 2]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 MR. ERICKSON: Judge, do you want everyone --

2 you want the Plaintiffs to go all at once and then the

3 Defendants? I think if you were to look at the Court’s

4 docket, you would see that they’re interspersed.

5 THE COURT: Yeah, that’s what I was just

6 looking to see what kind of order they came in.

7 (Brief pause in the proceedings.)

8 THE COURT: Mr. Erickson, why don’t we just

9 take yours --

10 MR. ERICKSON: Okay.

11 THE COURT: -- and then I’ll come back over to

12 you, Mr. Ella. And then we’ll just kind of work through

13 them that way.

14 And I understand, as far as the punitive damages

15 one, I -- my intent here, I think, is, you know, I want

16 it put together with the motion if you’re going to be

17 adding information. I’m going to put out a different

18 deadline for any punitive motion because I don’t want to

19 hear that today, unless you put it together with all the

20 information that you’ve argued and has been recently

21 discovered or whatever you want -- whatever term you want

22 to call it. I want that put together so it’s one packet,

23 so it gets --

24 MR. ERICKSON: It’s one memo.

25 THE COURT: Yes.
9

[Original PDF page 10 | Excerpt PDF page 3]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 MR. ERICKSON: And got it. Okay.

2 So we’ll hold back on the motion for punitive

3 damages, understanding that the Court is going to

4 reschedule for that. We’ve already talked about the

5 letter in which the Defendant lied to the Court with

6 regard to text messages that were irrelevant, and, in

7 fact, are very relevant. We’ve talked about

8 confidentiality --

9 MR. ELLA: Your Honor, wha-- is he addressing a

10 motion?

11 THE COURT: Yeah, let’s, let’s get on the

12 specific motion, Mr. Erickson.

13 MR. ERICKSON: Yeah, so that’s why I’m getting

14 there, Judge. The next motion is the motion, the omnibus

15 motion in limine.

16 (Brief pause in the proceedings.)

17 MR. ERICKSON: Motion in limine number one

18 deals with the Court should preclude testimony related to

19 the sealed minor conviction or testimony regarding any

20 type of minor conviction regarding Derek Schmidt. This

21 document was filed, Judge, on December 4 at 2:42 p.m. So

22 I’m not sure what the index number is regarding the

23 omnibus motion, but that’s when it was filed.

24 We point out, I think, in great detail that no

25 criminal conviction, no public conviction, has ever been
10

[Original PDF page 32 | Excerpt PDF page 4]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 maybe it can, but we would reserve the right to call

2 Ms. Skepper as to the scope of work that Precision does

3 as compared to the scope of work that Eagle Eye does.

4 And I just want to follow up, so Mr. Erickson said

5 as to damages on breach of contract, we have the 10-99s.

6 I’m like, what? The 10-99s, if anything, I guess, go to

7 the duty of loyalty. They have no damages on the breach

8 of contract. And they -- they haven’t articulated any.

9 They didn’t even respond, substantively, to the argument.

10 But hopefully, we’ll get to that today, if we have time.

11 MR. ERICKSON: My counsel is going to deal with

12 that on your motion to determine damages, which is a

13 motion for dismissal in disguise and in direct conflict

14 with what you agreed to withdraw.

15 THE COURT: Okay. We’ll -- we’ll deal with

16 that, but the number six, just looking at that. That was

17 related -- talked about the Facebook post and other

18 information, which I think when -- with the supplemental

19 -- sorry, now I’m -- the declaration. The second

20 declaration contains --

21 MR. ERICKSON: Mr. Mayen.

22 THE COURT: -- Yep. Contains new information

23 regarding that. That’s why I would like that one

24 addressed with the new information attached so the Court

25 has it together. So if there is one, for -- for just for
32

[Original PDF page 33 | Excerpt PDF page 5]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 me, and then two, for if there’s any appeal or anything

2 else, that someone taking a look at it isn’t trying to

3 reference multiple documents and information from

4 different dates. That it would all be together. So

5 that’s my intention there, Mr. Ella. With that.

6 So anything further, Mr. Ella? -- In response to

7 the motion in limine here?

8 MR. ELLA: I don’t think so, Your Honor.

9 THE COURT: All right.

10 Let me go back.

11 (Brief pause in the proceedings.)

12 MR. ELLA: Well, I’ll just say with regard to

13 the minor, you know, I think there is a hearsay exception

14 for -- for what’s it called? Effect on the -- on the

15 witness. In other words, if the question was, Why did

16 you think he was creepy? And she says, well, I’ve heard

17 this stuff and this stuff; I think it comes in as effect

18 on the listener.

19 MR. ERICKSON: Judge, I need to respond to

20 that.

21 THE COURT: You may.

22 MR. ERICKSON: It’s being offered for the truth

23 of the matter asserted. The effect on the witness is

24 peripheral with regard to the truthfulness of the witness

25 as to what she experienced. What she actually
33

[Original PDF page 35 | Excerpt PDF page 6]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 THE COURT: -- list as I’m --

2 MR. ERICKSON: Got it.

3 THE COURT: -- I’m scrolling. So.

4 All right. Mr. Ella, let’s first start with just

5 because I’m going to take it in order for my index

6 numbers, excluding expert witness testimony.

7 MR. ELLA: Yeah, this one’s pretty simple. The

8 Court decides the law; doesn’t need an expert on the law.

9 I had one of these motions in my career, earlier on.

10 Marshall Tanick’s a nice guy, but the Court doesn’t need

11 an attorney to come in -- I’m just trying to find the

12 motion, give me a moment here.

13 (Brief pause in the proceedings.)

14 MR. ELLA: Number twelve.

15 So I’m trying to remember what he was going to

16 testify to, but you know, one thing is that he’s -- okay.

17 Here we go.

18 That they’re defamatory per se. No, I don’t know.

19 Mr. Erickson says that we’ve already conceded that if

20 they’re defamatory they relate to trade or professions,

21 so. And then what? He’s going to testify that

22 pedophilia is a crime?

23 I mean, we don’t need him for that. And you know, I

24 think we will have a discussion at some point, or I

25 should say, we may, about the difference between the
35

[Original PDF page 36 | Excerpt PDF page 7]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 crime of pedophilia, being convicted for pedophilia, and

2 just the sort of psychological condition of being a

3 pedophile, which seems to be a real topic of discussion

4 in today’s society. And military desertion is a crime.

5 I mean, not only is it improper to have a lawyer testify

6 as to the law, it seems completely unnecessary.

7 MR. ERICKSON: Judge, I don’t know --

8 THE COURT: And, and --

9 MR. ERICKSON: -- if you’re done yet, Mr. Ella?

10 THE COURT: Yeah, let me ask.

11 Mr. Ella, is that -- are you done on that issue?

12 MR. ELLA: I think so, Your Honor.

13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Erickson.

14 MR. ERICKSON: Judge, this provides the answer

15 with regard to how the court, how the jury, should

16 evaluate damages. What Mr. Tanick does is, he explains

17 both in terms of community involvement and development of

18 the law with regard to pedophilia. How the Court --

19 excuse me, how the jury ought to evaluate the damages

20 component with regard to this. I agree with Mr. Ella

21 that defamation per se has been established. And the

22 issue is who said it with regard to this. That’s, that’s

23 the only issue with regard to this. I agree with that.

24 But we need somebody to explain the impact of ten

25 thousand cable-vining groups nationwide getting, or over
36

[Original PDF page 43 | Excerpt PDF page 8]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 And then also just to reiterate something that

2 Mr. Erickson said earlier, is that in Mr. Starkebaum’s

3 request for admissions --

4 MR. ERICKSON: Responses.

5 MR. ABRESS: -- Excuse me, his responses to our

6 request for admission, he admitted that if the statements

7 at issue in this case are false, then they are defamation

8 per se. So I don’t know what argument there is left over

9 that these are subject to any kind of privilege because

10 he admitted that they were per se defamatory.

11 Moving on to the -- I’ll take them one at a time

12 whether this is subject to absolute privilege as a matter

13 of public concern or subject to a qualified privilege.

14 Now, something that’s completely absent from the

15 Defendant’s briefing on this issue is that the intent of

16 the speaker is of paramount importance in determining

17 whether or not something is a matter of public concern.

18 That’s stressed by the Freborg case, which is cited by

19 Defendants, and that’s stressed by the United States

20 Supreme Court in the Snyder v. Phelps case, which

21 involved the Westboro Baptist Church. It involved the

22 Westboro Baptist Church protesting outside of the

23 funerals of soldiers.

24 Now, one of the things the Supreme Court stressed in

25 that case was that there was no pre-existing relationship
43

[Original PDF page 65 | Excerpt PDF page 9]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 THE COURT: Well, we’ve been at this for about

2 an hour and forty-five minutes. We’re going to take

3 about a ten-minute break. We’ll come back, finish up

4 what we’ve got left after that. We’re going to recess

5 until about 10:55. Thank you.

6 MR. ELLA: Thanks, Your Honor.

7 (A recess is taken.)

8 THE COURT: All right. We’ll go back on the

9 record with all parties back.

10 I’m going through, kind of, my register here. It

11 looked like the next issue, which is the punitive

12 damages, which we’re going to -- we’ll be putting out a

13 scheduling order for that. So that was the next one.

14 We’re not going to address that request here today. Then

15 we get to verdict forms and such. That’s something we’ll

16 deal with at a later date, obviously, too.

17 MR. ERICKSON: It might just be the motion on

18 E.S.

19 THE COURT: I’m looking for --

20 MR. ERICKSON: I think it’s Defendant’s motion

21 for leave for trial witness to appear by video.

22 THE COURT: Oh. All right. That’s where I was

23 getting up to. That’s when you said E.S., I wasn’t -- I

24 was looking for --

25 MR. ERICKSON: Yeah. I was going with the
65

[Original PDF page 69 | Excerpt PDF page 10]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 that are due to get her here. We’d indicated, not only

2 in the stipulation, but otherwise, that witnesses are

3 going to be sequestered so there’s no chance that

4 Matt Guthmiller is going to be in the courtroom at the

5 same time that E.S. is in the courtroom. So I think

6 those are all things that are important with regard to

7 this.

8 THE COURT: The Court will have to make a

9 ruling on that. So I will take a look at everything

10 there.

11 We took care of the confidentiality. So is that, I

12 mean, I have a better term, I mean, those are the issues

13 we’re here, you’ve argued all the issues everybody was

14 anticipating? Mr. Erickson?

15 Obviously, like I said, I’m going to put out another

16 order to address timelines for things and other, other

17 motions and such, that are -- I’d request it to be

18 amended to include any new argument on the information

19 recently --

20 MR. ERICKSON: From the Rule 16 letter.

21 THE COURT: All right. So, Mr. Erickson,

22 anything further that you expected to argue here today?

23 MR. ERICKSON: No. The only other thing I

24 would say is this: I understand that we’re going to amend

25 the schedule for adding additional argument with regard
69

[Original PDF page 70 | Excerpt PDF page 11]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 to punitive damages, and also with regard to motion six

2 in the limi-- in limine. And if I’ve got the number

3 wrong, it is the motion involving the declaration

4 involving Christopher Mayen.

5 THE COURT: All right. And I do have that as

6 number six.

7 And if the Court -- if I have further questions, you

8 know, I’ll do what I did in that last one. I’m going to

9 ask, if I have something that comes up as I’m wading

10 through a lot of information and I need clarity; the

11 Court will, under my purview, ask those questions.

12 So Mr. Ella, was there anything further that you

13 were expecting to address here today that we haven’t?

14 MR. ELLA: If there’s gonna be a new scheduling

15 order and further briefing, I would like to brief the

16 motion to dismiss based on the settlement. I mean,

17 because it’s a new fact, we would not have been able to

18 do that previously, and we haven’t had a chance to brief

19 it to date. I think it disposes of the tort claim, and

20 I’ll just reiterate, I would like the Plaintiffs to

21 articulate to the Court how -- what damages they’re

22 seeking for breach of contract. It's not been explained

23 in the briefing. I didn’t hear it today. And I think

24 it’s incumbent on the Plaintiffs to be able to articulate

25 their theory to the Court so that we can plan for that.
70