Precision Locating v. Starkebaum – Review Hearing Transcript Excerpts (October 1, 2026; Filed October 27, 2026)

Accessible document transcript

[Excerpt PDF page 1 | Added source identification cover]
Selected October 1 2026 Review Hearing
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 231

Hearing date October 1, 2026

Filing date October 27, 2026

Original selected PDF pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Selected pages from the October 1, 2026 review hearing, including the original cover and reporter
certification. Original pages 5 through 7 are omitted from this excerpt.

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 1 = excerpt 2; original 2 = excerpt 3; original 3 = excerpt 4; original 4 = excerpt 5; original 8 =
excerpt 6; original 9 = excerpt 7; original 10 = excerpt 8; original 11 = excerpt 9; original 12 = excerpt 10

Source file 231 - 2026_10_27 - Transcript.pdf

Source SHA-256
74dbbff18eb01d6efedad0b91f4f505a
92ddf54e2b216878d588271f2f5cc4a5

[Original PDF page 1 | Excerpt PDF page 2]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

2 COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3

4 Precision Locating, LLC,
Arvig Enterprises, Inc. Appellate Court File: N/A
5 District Court File: 56-CV-25-198
Plaintiffs,
6
vs. Transcript of Proceedings
7
Martin D Starkebaum,
8
Defendant.
9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10
REVIEW HEARING
11
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12
The above-entitled matter came before the
13
Honorable Kevin M. Miller, Judge of District Court, at the
14
Otter Tail County Courthouse, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, on
15
October 1, 2026, via Zoom technology.
16
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
17 APPEARANCES

18 For the Petitioners: Kurt Erickson
Colin Abress
19 80 S. 8th Street, Ste 1300
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2136
20 Lori Meader also appeared.

21 For the Defense: Vincent John Ella
One Southwest Crossing
22 11095 Viking Drive, Ste 420
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
23 The Defendant also appeared.

24 Dana Eifert
Official Court Reporter
25

[Original PDF page 2 | Excerpt PDF page 3]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 (Proceedings commenced.)

2 THE COURT: All right. At this time, the Court

3 will call Precision Locating, Arvig Enterprises versus

4 Martin Starkebaum, 56-CV-25-198. I have Mr. Erickson. I

5 have Mr. Abress. I have Mr. Ella and Mr. Starkebaum.

6 I put this matter on -- I’ll just, I know that

7 letter came in about time crunch and everything else. I

8 can disclose to everybody right now I am also our master

9 court judge here in Otter Tail County, which means I

10 start my in-custody hearings in about thirteen minutes.

11 I wanted to put this on quick to kind of get a status.

12 See how much time I would need to look for calendaring

13 purposes. I know this was alerted, or the issue came up

14 a couple weeks ago, or whatever it was; I had a five-day

15 jury and then a judicial conference last week. So this

16 was the first, kind of, little spot I could kind of push

17 in, just to get this update to kind of figure out how

18 long we would need. Or the parties believe we would need

19 to try to discuss things further because I didn’t want it

20 sitting and lingering.

21 So I’m going to start, Mr. Erickson, thoughts that

22 you have for me today? Just kind of on that. I know you

23 had sent that correspondence in and we tried to reach

24 out, but things happen fairly quick --

25 MR. ELLA: Your Honor --
2

[Original PDF page 3 | Excerpt PDF page 4]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 THE COURT: -- Oh, go ahead. Somebody’s --

2 MR. ELLA: Your Honor, I believe --

3 UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: (Indiscernible).

4 MR. ELLA: -- we sent the first initial letter.

5 THE COURT: -- Oh, I --

6 MR. ELLA: -- But if Mr. Erickson goes first, I

7 just want to make sure, because of the time crunch, that

8 I have five minutes allocated.

9 THE COURT: All right. If you were the first

10 one, I apologize. I’ve been -- I’ve been on the

11 treadmill this morning, as far as hearings, and I had

12 some quick notes down.

13 Mr. Ella, if you were the one that sent the first

14 letter, you may go first.

15 MR. ELLA: Thanks, Your Honor. I just want to

16 remind the Court that this whole thing started after my

17 client agreed to a non-disparagement in a previous

18 settlement agreement, and then was sued for a statement

19 that he did not make. That is relevant because both

20 sides are understandably wary about the language of a new

21 non-disparagement agreement. And now Precision is even

22 threatening a new suit in its letter.

23 We agreed to core terms up in Fergus, but it was

24 expressly not binding and not on the record, and I don’t

25 think we have a recording. So we are very, very, very
3

[Original PDF page 4 | Excerpt PDF page 5]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 close to the substantive terms of a resolution. But we

2 have not been able to agree on the language of a

3 settlement agreement. Plaintiff has presented a seventy-

4 seven-page settlement document. We object to the non-

5 disparagement clause, the language, and the inclusion of

6 the previous settlement agreement as not being void.

7 We’re not -- in my opinion, we tried to work through the

8 language issues, counsel-to-counsel. We were not

9 successful. To me the -- I think it would be a

10 tremendous waste of resources to go to trial. To me, the

11 real only next step would be for the Court to order us to

12 mediation to hash out the language issues.

13 MR. ERICKSON: Can I respond, Judge?

14 THE COURT: Yep. Mr. Ella, -- let me just,

15 Mr. Ella, are you finished with your statement?

16 MR. ELLA: Yes, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Erickson.

18 MR. ERICKSON: Yeah. We don’t agree that the

19 Plaintiff, excuse me, that the Defendant, Mr. Starkebaum,

20 did not defame Precision and Arvig. For all the reasons

21 stated in the jury instructions, in the cases we’ve

22 cited, in for example, the declarations from Mr. Mayen

23 with regard to this. It’s clear that he participated in

24 not only violating the previous settlement agreement but

25 also in committing common law defamation. So we don’t
4

[Original PDF page 8 | Excerpt PDF page 6]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 like the example. I don’t think the example’s helpful.

2 My clien-- I mean, here’s the deal. Both sides, this is

3 the core issue, because this is where the case came from.

4 My client doesn’t want to get sued again, believe me.

5 He’s been just traumatized by this whole thing. So both

6 sides are concerned about the language of the non-

7 disparagement going forward, which makes complete sense.

8 My client tells me, I don’t understand why this can’t be

9 a one-page document. Now, I get why it has to be a few

10 more pages, but seventy-seven pages is kind of the other

11 extreme. And I think that there’s just two different

12 viewpoints. One is that if we make it longer and more

13 complicated, we can avoid issues. And the other is,

14 let’s just keep to the core terms. I would just say that

15 Plaintiff agrees not to defame- or disparage Defendants,

16 and Defendants agree not to disparage Plaintiff. I don’t

17 like the examples, and the, you know, the complexity of

18 what they’re proposing. But we’re -- I, I just don’t

19 think we’re going to be able to work out the language on

20 our own. And the only solution other than going to

21 trial, which would be ridiculous, is to have a mediator

22 with a laptop who can just get us through the language

23 issue.

24 THE COURT: Yeah, it looks --

25 MR. ERICKSON: Judge --
8

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

1 THE COURT: -- to me, I mean the agreement

2 itself is really sixteen pages with --

3 MR. ERICKSON: Yeah.

4 THE COURT: -- exhibits attached. Isn’t that

5 --

6 MR. ERICKSON: That’s correct, Judge.

7 THE COURT: Okay. I just --

8 MR. ELLA: That’s --

9 THE COURT: -- make sure I was -- I mean, isn’t

10 that -- isn’t that really, I mean, and really it would be

11 fifteen pages if you take away that last page of

12 signature lines.

13 I mean, Mr. Ella --

14 (Multiple speakers talking at once, indiscernible.)

15 THE COURT: -- Would you disagree with that,

16 Mr. Ella? That that’s --

17 MR. ELLA: No, I would not.

18 THE COURT: Okay.

19 MR. ERICKSON: Judge, and the only thing I

20 would add is, we’ve been to mediation in this case twice.

21 We went to mediation with a gentleman from Detroit Lakes,

22 and then we mediated before Judge Mark W. Bennett, a

23 retired federal district court judge. Weren’t able to

24 get anywhere with that. We’re not interested in going

25 back to mediation. If we have to try the case, then
9

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

1 let’s try the case. That’s why I sent the letter with

2 regard to getting back on your, on your schedule. Am I

3 happy about that? Is my client happy about it? No. But

4 we’re not going to go and listen -- you know, part of the

5 issue here is this, which is, the examples are rooted in

6 what’s actually happened in the case and what was

7 proposed to happen in the case. That’s what the examples

8 do. They make it as crystal clear as possible: do this

9 or don’t do that. And here’s what you can do, and here’s

10 what you can’t. So that we’re not back here. And the

11 answer to that is, we won’t do that. And the answer, you

12 know, I mean, I think it’s got to be very clear to the

13 Court at this point that Mr. Starkebaum doesn’t believe

14 that this Court will take this case to trial. And as a

15 result, we’re going to sit here spinning our wheels and

16 go to mediation. We’re not willing to pay fifty percent

17 for a third mediation. We paid for the first one. On

18 the second one, I believe, it was -- even though

19 Mr. Starkebaum and his attorney were at the mediation --

20 I believe the only people who paid for that mediation

21 were the Plaintiffs and Mr. Mayen. Even though

22 Mr. Starkebaum was at that one, I think he left the

23 mediation before the mediation concluded, at the

24 direction, by the way, as I understand it, of

25 Judge Bennett. So he didn’t leave without getting the
10

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

1 mediator’s consent, but that’s just, that’s just an

2 opportunity to spend more money and more time without

3 moving forward and getting the case resolved one way or

4 another.

5 THE COURT: All right. I’m going to take a

6 look at this. I’ll get some thoughts out here as quickly

7 as possible for the parties and look at my scheduling

8 going forward, so we can address some of these. And if

9 it moves towards trial, we’ll get that figured out. If

10 we get it -- otherwise, I make a decision, and we get

11 that figured out too.

12 So, I’m going to take a look at this. Like I said,

13 I’ve been -- I’ve been chasing myself for a few weeks

14 because of the calendar, but I’ll get something out here

15 to the parties on this one as quickly as possible, and

16 we’ll do our best to make it work with everybody’s

17 calendars too because just because I can shove it into

18 mine doesn’t mean you guys don’t have obligations of your

19 own. So we’ll be cognizant of that too.

20 MR. ERICKSON: Thank you, Judge.

21 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, everyone,

22 and that will conclude the hearing here today.

23 MR. ERICKSON: Thank you, Judge.

24 MR. ELLA: Thanks, Your Honor.

25 (Proceedings concluded.)
11

[Original PDF page 12 | Excerpt PDF page 10]
56-CV-25-198 Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
10/27/2026 9:04 AM

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

2 COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3

4 Precision Locating, LLC,
Arvig Enterprises, Inc. Appellate Court File: N/A
5 District Court File: 56-CV-25-198
Plaintiffs,
6
vs. REPORTER’S CERTIFICATION
7 Martin D Starkebaum,

8 Defendant.

9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10 I, Dana Eifert, hereby certify that I am an official court

11 reporter in the Seventh Judicial District of the State of

12 Minnesota; that as such reporter I digitally recorded the

13 proceedings in the above-entitled action; that I thereafter

14 transcribed to typewriting the foregoing transcript from the

15 digital recordings taken in Otter Tail County, Minnesota on

16 October 1, 2026; and that the foregoing transcript consisting of

17 eleven (11) pages, constitutes a full, true, and accurate

18 transcription of said proceeding.

19 Dated: October 25, 2026

20
/s/ Dana Eifert
21 Dana Eifert
Electronic Court Reporter
22 c/o Otter Tail County Courthouse
121 West Junius Avenue
23 Fergus Falls, MN 56537
Telephone: 218-560-7068
24
25 12