The link to court docs turns out to require signing up for a service (albeit with a free trial) to read them but it did reveal that the CAP was dismissed as a defendant by agreement of all parties. Interesting. It apparently didn't help keep the CAP's name out of the news about the trial, however.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/0...n-in-suit.html provides a little more info on the single sentence in the judge's order covering the CAPs knowledge of the local rules:

Per attorney Ranse Partin, lead counsel for the plaintiffs: "What was more frustrating was that the Civil Air Patrol pilots knew about rules, discussed whether they should abide by rules, and decided the rules didn't apply to them."

And further in the article:

"Before the trial, government lawyers stipulated that the Air Patrol pilots were aware of—but did not follow—the Lagrange-Callaway airport's rules prohibiting glider takeoffs when an aircraft is approaching to land and requiring them to employ a spotter to warn of possible air traffic at the airport, which has no air traffic control tower. They also failed to file a formal notice to other airmen that they intended to conduct glider takeoffs and landings. But government lawyers argued that the rules did not apply to Civil Air Patrol flights, according to Batten's order."

Chip Bearden