Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards

CourtDistrict Court, D. Montana
DecidedJuly 10, 2025
Docket2:20-cv-00028
StatusUnknown

This text of Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards (Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards, (D. Mont. 2025).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION

COTTONWOOD ENVIRONMENTAL LAW No. 2:20-CV-00028-BMM CENTER,

Plaintiff,

ORDER v.

BIG SKY WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT; BOYNE USA, INC.,

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Cottonwood Environmental Law Center (“Cottonwood”) filed a motion to vacate the judgment of the Court. (Doc. 235.) Cottonwood bases its motion on the theory that Defendants committed fraud on the Court by hiding evidence during the 2022 trial. (See Doc. 236.) Defendant Big Sky Water and Sewer District (“BSWSD”) opposes the motion. (Doc. 238.) Cottonwood also filed a motion to strike a sur-reply filed by BSWSD in response to Cottonwood’s reply to the motion to vacate. (Doc. 243.) BSWSD opposes that motion. (Doc. 247.) The Court held a hearing on June 9, 2025. (Doc. 261.) 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The motions before the Court stem from a Clean Water Act lawsuit that Cottonwood initiated in July 2020. (See Doc. 1.) Cottonwood tried its claim against

BSWSD before a jury in April 2022. Cottonwood sought to pre-admit Exhibit 112 and Exhibit 113 at the final pre-trial conference. (Doc. 1124-2 at 2.) The Court admitted Exhibit 112 and Exhibit 113 without objection. (Docs. 132; 139 at 1; and

145 at 1.) Cottonwood acknowledged before trial that Exhibit 112 and Exhibit 113 were duplicate Excel spreadsheets: “We accidentally duplicated. We put 112 and 113 in there, and they’re essentially the same thing.” (Doc. 159 at 82.) Exhibit 112

and Exhibit 113 are Excel spreadsheets that contain data reflecting, among other things, water that BSWSD exported from its holding pond to the Yellowstone Club and Spanish Peaks to be used to irrigate golf courses there. (Doc. 159 at 11-12.) Cottonwood sought, immediately before jury selection, to introduce Exhibit

119. Cottonwood explained that Exhibit 119 represented another Excel spreadsheet provided by BSWSD that contained data regarding BSWSD’s export of water from its holding pond for irrigation. (Id. at 81.) Cottonwood justified the admission of

Exhibit 119 on the basis that “it contains variables not included in 112 – 113.” (Id. at 82.) The Court declined to admit Exhibit 119 after BSWSD objected on the grounds that it had not had time to review the entirety of the extensive Excel spreadsheet to confirm that it matched the data in Exhibit 112 and Exhibit 113: 2 I will not admit this exhibit – Mr. Meyer, I’m not going to admit [Exhibit 119] until you complete your – until the witness completes his testimony about it so I can make sure that there are no errors or mistakes in it.

(Id. at 84.) The Court allowed Cottonwood to use Exhibit 119 during its questioning of its expert witness. (Id.) The Court declined to admit Exhibit 119, however, due to concerns raised by BSWSD regarding its completeness. (Id.) The jury returned a verdict in favor of BSWSD. (Doc. 142.) Cottonwood moved for a new trial, claiming, among other things, that BSWSD had presented false evidence at trial. (Doc. 173.) The Court denied Cottonwood’s motion. (Doc. 198.) Cottonwood appealed issues related to the Court’s summary judgment orders

and jury instructions. (Doc. 210.) The Ninth Circuit affirmed. See Cottonwood Evn’t L. Ctr. v. Edwards, 86 F.4th 1255, 1264 (9th Cir. 2023). Cottonwood petitioned for rehearing en banc, and that petition was denied. Cottonwood Evn’t L. Ctr. v.

Edwards, No. 22-36015, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 674 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2024). Cottonwood sought relief tangential to the above litigation in other venues. Cottonwood sued BSWSD and its former general manager, Ron Edwards, and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) in Montana state district

court. (See Doc. 238-1.) The Montana state district court dismissed claims against BSWSD and Edwards and granted summary judgment to DEQ. (See Doc. 238-2; Doc. 238-3.) Cottonwood also filed administrative complaints with DEQ, and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) related to the above 3 litigation. DEQ declined to pursue Cottonwood’s claims as “evidence did not support the allegation the Ponds were leaking in excess of the design standard; or

that the Golf Course is being over irrigated.” (Doc. 238-4.) The EPA also declined to pursue Cottonwood’s claims stating that there were “no ongoing investigations regarding this matter” and “the information cited in the portion of the email exchange

excerpted in the court’s order has not resulted in the EPA changing the conclusions and recommendations in its February 8, 2024 NPDES Inspection Report.” (Doc. 238-5 at 7.) Cottonwood now alleges that BSWSD presented false evidence at the 2022

trial. (See Doc. 236.) Cottonwood also has initiated a separate civil action alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), against Edwards and BSWSD’s counsel, Jonathan Rauchway. (See Doc. 238-6.)

Cottonwood raises claims in its civil RICO action that relate to Cottonwood’s allegations in the instant matter. (Id.) LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to relieve a party from a

final judgment if the opposing party committed fraud. Fraud on the court typically involves “fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury.” United States v. Buck, 281 F.3d 1336, 1342 (10th Cir. 2022). A high standard exists to 4 establish a fraud on the court claim. A party must show “newly discovered” misconduct that qualifies as “egregious.” United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc.,

862 F.3d 1157, 1168 (9th Cir. 2017); Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int’l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1132–34 (9th Cir. 2022). The complaining party must show misconduct through clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415,

443–44 (9th Cir. 2011). DISCUSSION I. Motion to Vacate Cottonwood presents two different theories on how BSWSD committed fraud on the court. The Court will address each in turn. Cottonwood argues first in its brief in support that BSWSD falsified data regarding how much water BSWSD exported for irrigation to Spanish Peaks and the Yellowstone Club in 2020. This

export data affected the leakage rate that Cottonwood’s expert presented to the jury. (Doc. 236.) Cottonwood also presents a new theory of fraud related to the water export data contained in Excel spreadsheets in Exhibit 112 and Exhibit 113.

BSWSD did not falsify data. BSWSD recorded data regarding water exported from its holding pond to neighboring golf courses for irrigation. BSWSD presented evidence at trial that Cottonwood incorrectly calculated leakage rates when Cottonwood failed to account for water exported for irrigation to golf

courses at Spanish Peaks and the Yellowstone Club. (Doc. 160 at 69–72.) The 5 meter used to monitor the volume of water that BSWSD exported to Spanish Peaks and the Yellowstone Club was fully operational. BSWSD recorded the irrigation

export data. The recorded data supported the evidence BSWSD presented at trial. (Doc. 238-7, ¶¶ 6–10; see also Doc. 160 at 65–71.) Cottonwood possessed this data from BSWSD and included it in its Trial

Exhibit 112. (See Cottonwood’s Trial Exhibit 112; see also Doc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Edwards, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cottonwood-environmental-law-center-v-edwards-mtd-2025.