David K. Lee v. Caffebene Inc. et al

Filing 36

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Defendant's Motion to Preclude Evidence or Argument in Support of Damages. The Court DENIES defendant's motion in limine to preclude plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument in support of damages. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

Master File: 2:15-cv-04611-CAS(JEMx);
c/w: 2:15-cv-04613-CAS(JEMx)

Title

YOUNG RAE CHO v. CAFFEBENE, INC.;
c/w: DAVID K. LEE v. CAFFEBENE, INC.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

September 21, 2016

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(IN CHAMBERS) - DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE
EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF DAMAGES

INTRODUCTION

On October 2, 2014, plaintiff Yung Rae Cho filed an action (“Cho Action”) in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against defendant Caffebene, Inc. and Does 1–10,
inclusive. Dkt. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”). Cho asserts six claims for relief against defendant:
(1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay timely unpaid wages upon plaintiff’s
termination in violation of California Labor Code § 203; (3) failure to provide plaintiff
with itemized statements of plaintiff’s hours, overtime hours, and wages in violation of
California Labor Code § 226.7; (4) failure to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of
California Labor Code § 226.7; (5) wrongful termination; and (6) unfair business
practices pursuant to California Business & Profession Code § 17200. Id. On June 15,
2015, defendant removed the Cho Action to federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction. Dkt. 1.
Also on October 2, 2014, David K. Lee filed an action in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against defendant Caffebene, Inc. and Does 1–10, inclusive. Case No.
2:15-cv-04613-CAS-JEM, Dkt. 1, Ex. A (“Lee Action”). Lee raised substantially similar
allegations against defendant. Id. On June 15, 2015, defendant removed the Lee Action
to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Case No. 2:15-cv-04613-CASJEM, Dkt. 1.
On February 2, 2016, the Court consolidated the Cho and Lee Actions. Dkt. 27.
CV-4611 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

Master File: 2:15-cv-04611-CAS(JEMx);
c/w: 2:15-cv-04613-CAS(JEMx)

Title

Date

‘O’

September 21, 2016

YOUNG RAE CHO v. CAFFEBENE, INC.;
c/w: DAVID K. LEE v. CAFFEBENE, INC.

On August 30, 2016, defendant filed a motion in limine for an order to prevent
plaintiffs from offering at trial any evidence or argument that plaintiffs are entitled to
damages. Dkt. 39 (MIL). Defendant contends that plaintiffs failed to provide “initial
disclosures”—specifically a computation of damages—in violation of Federal of Civil
Procedure 26(a). Id. & Ex. 1 (“Nadler Decl.”). As a result, defendant argues that
plaintiffs should be precluded from offering evidence or argument at trial that plaintiffs
are entitled to money damages. MIL. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendant’s
motion in limine on September 12, 2016. Dkt. 51.
Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes
as follows.
III.

LEGAL STANDARDS

A motion in limine is “a procedural device to obtain an early and preliminary
ruling on the admissibility of evidence.” Goodman v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t,
963 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1046 (D. Nev. 2013). Trial courts have broad discretion when
ruling on such motions. See Jenkins v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 316 F.3d 664, 664 (7th
Cir.2 002). Moreover, such rulings are provisional and “not binding on the trial judge”
on the court. Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758 n. 3 (2000). “Denial of a motion
in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by the motion will be
admitted at trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, the court is
unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded.” Ind. Ins. Co.
v. Gen. Elec. Co., 326 F. Supp. 2d 844, 846 (N.D. Ohio 2004).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) sets forth the disclosures which a party
must provide without awaiting a discovery request unless exempted, stipulated or ordered
by the court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). The initial disclosures must be made within
fourteen days of the parties’ Rule 26(f)4 conference absent stipulation, court order or
objection by a party. Id.; see also R & R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania, 673 F.3d
1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A major purpose of the initial disclosure requirements is to
accelerate the exchange of basic information about the case and to eliminate the paper
work involved in requesting such information.”) (quotations and citation omitted). Where

CV-4611 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

Master File: 2:15-cv-04611-CAS(JEMx);
c/w: 2:15-cv-04613-CAS(JEMx)

Title

Date

‘O’

September 21, 2016

YOUNG RAE CHO v. CAFFEBENE, INC.;
c/w: DAVID K. LEE v. CAFFEBENE, INC.

a party “fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a), any other party may move to
compel disclosure and for appropriate sanctions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(A).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, “[i]f a party fails to provide information
or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that
information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless
the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). “Among
the factors that may properly guide a district court in determining whether a violation of a
discovery deadline is justified or harmless are: (1) prejudice or surprise to the party
against whom the evidence is offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice;
(3) the likelihood of disruption of the trial; and (4) bad faith or willfulness involved in not
timely disclosing the evidence.” Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Novelty, Inc., 375 F. App’x 705,
713 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing David v. Caterpillar, Inc., 324 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2003)).
The Ninth Circuit “give[s] particularly wide latitude to the district court’s discretion to
issue sanctions under Rule 37(c)(1).” Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259
F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001).
IV.

DISCUSSION

Defendant alleges that plaintiffs never disclosed a computation of the damages that
they seek. MIL. Specifically, defendant avers that “Plaintiffs never disclosed – through
initial disclosures, supplemental disclosures, expert disclosures, or otherwise – ‘a
computation of each category of damages claimed by’ Plaintiffs, as required under Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iii).” Nadler Decl. ¶ 6. Defendant also alleges that plaintiffs did not
respond or object to defendant’s first request for the production of documents, served on
May 16, 2016. Id. ¶ 7–8. As a result, defendant seeks to exclude evidence and argument
that plaintiffs are entitled to damages Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37.
Plaintiffs contend that they responded to defendant’s discovery requests while the
matter was still pending in state court, and that their responses included a computation of
damages. Opp’n 11–12. For example, defendant served Cho and Lee with form
interrogatories on May 1, 2015. See Opp’n, Exs. 9, 17. In response to defendant’s
question asking Cho to state his total income lost to date as a result of the “incident,”
Opp’n, Ex 9 at 4, Cho stated that he had lost $3,500 monthly since July 25, 2014 (the date
of the termination of his employment) based on his monthly salary before termination.
CV-4611 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

Master File: 2:15-cv-04611-CAS(JEMx);
c/w: 2:15-cv-04613-CAS(JEMx)

Title

Date

‘O’

September 21, 2016

YOUNG RAE CHO v. CAFFEBENE, INC.;
c/w: DAVID K. LEE v. CAFFEBENE, INC.

Opp’n, Ex. 10 at 9. In response to defendant’s question asking Cho whether he will lose
income in the future, and if so, to estimate the amount, Opp’n, Ex 9 at 4, Cho answered
that he expected to lose $3,500 per month in the future because he has been unable to find
suitable employment after his termination. Opp’n, Ex. 10 at 9–10. In response to the
same questions from defendant, Lee estimated that he has lost $3,570 per month since
July 25, 2014 based on his monthly salary before termination and Lee stated that he
expected to lose $3,750 per month in the future. Opp’n, Ex. 18 at 9–10. Plaintiffs
therefore argue that they have already disclosed the extent of their damages based on
unpaid wages and wrongful termination and how the damages were calculated. Opp’n at
20. In addition, plaintiffs responded to defendant’s requests for production of documents
while the matter was pending in state court, see Opp’n, Exs. 16, 24, and provided
defendants with more than 500 pages of documents, Opp’n at 17, 20. Plaintiffs argue that
their failure to comply with Rule 26(a) is “substantially justified” and “harmless” because
“no additional document or evidence has been identified since the initial disclosure prior
to removal.” Id. at 20.
The Court agrees with plaintiffs. Contrary to defendant’s allegations, plaintiffs
have disclosed a computation of the damages they seek and they have responded to
defendant’s prior requests for production. That plaintiffs did so while the matter was
pending in state court does not prejudice defendant, is unlikely to disrupt the trial, and
does not evidence bad faith on the part of plaintiffs. See Lanard Toys, 375 F. App’x at
713. The Court finds that defendant fails to present a persuasive reason to preclude
plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument in support of damages at trial.
V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion in limine
to preclude plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument in support of damages.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-4611 (09/16)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 4 of 4