(Written by kencraw)

While I was off helping the world be a better place by adding another Cal fan to the world, there was a partial ruling on the SAHPC case. More correctly stated, it’s a tiny tidbit of a sliver of information that is really just a request for information at it’s root. You can find the ruling here and a very good article by BearInsider here. Most of you have probably already read most of the critical info on it, but I figured I’d add my thoughts.

The long and short of it is that this is meaningless, except for the delays added if you’re just looking at the facts and is good for Cal if you’re trying to read the tea-leaves.

During the hearings, the University brought up the idea that perhaps the University wasn’t subject to the Alquist-Priolo act. When it came up it was clearly an aside as the rest of the time the University spent it’s time defending how it was in complete compliance with the AP. My thinking at the time was something along the lines of “well, I doubt it’ll matter or even work but if it does, it makes this aspect of the case a slam dunk.”

So the Judge ruled this week that the University is indeed subject to the AP, which is what everyone expected. Judge Miller also ruled that both sides needed to provide expert testimony to make their case as to why or why not the SAHPC is part of Memorial Stadium. Since everyone expected that the University was subject to the AP, her ruling is meaningless. It just puts us right back where we were before except that Judge Miller is asking for even MORE testimony, this time from experts in building codes and the such. Some of that was already given in the hearings, but she’s asking for a more complete set of testimony.

That’s where reading the tea leaves comes in. The fact that she’s asking for expert testimony appears to be a blow to the opposition. The opposition spent it’s time during the trial trying to avoid the text in the building code about what defines a structure and referring to Websters dictionary and the such demanding that “common usage” of the word ‘addition’ should be used, not the technical definitions in the building codes. For tea leaf readers, Judge Miller’s request is a clear indication that she doesn’t buy the “common usage” garbage. In fact, the fact that she’s focusing on this portion of the 16 complaints filed also suggests that she doesn’t find much of their case compelling as, assuming she isn’t buying the common usage” crud, the area is pretty clear cut and if it’s on the top of her list of issues to be resolved, she must have dismissed the others in her mind already.

But that’s all speculation. The reality is that Judge Miller didn’t rule on much of anything other than asking for more testimony.

It’s back to the waiting game. That testimony was supposed to be filed yesterday and Judge Miller promised a ruling by Mid-February.