Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 143

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PRE-TRIAL ORDER AND ORDER AMENDING PRE-TRIAL ORDER, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/22/2017. (Kusamura, W)

4
1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TREVOR WEEKS,

10

Plaintiff

11
12

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT

v.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

13

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’
OBJECTIONS TO PRE-TRIAL ORDER
AND ORDER AMENDING PRE-TRIAL
ORDER

Defendant

14
15
16

On December 14, 2017, the Court issued a pre-trial order. On December 21, 2017,

17

Defendant filed timely objections. Defendant also contacted the Court in order to explain that one

18

witness, Rodney Doerr was inadvertently omitted from its witness list. This order addresses

19

Defendant’s objections and request to add Mr. Doerr to the witness list.

20
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PRE-TRIAL ORDER1

21
22

1.

23

Sec. III – Undisputed Facts
Defendant objects that two facts were included in the undisputed facts section, when those

24

facts are really disputed. Specifically, Defendants object that there are disputes with respect to

25

Paragraph 4 (EEOC and DFEH documents) and Paragraph 5 (license renewal meetings).

26
27
28

1

The Court notes that, contrary to Court orders, the parties did not submit a joint pre-trial statement. If all parties had
met and conferred in a timely fashion, a proper joint pre-trial statement could have been submitted and these
objections would not have been filed. The Court anticipates that the parties will cooperate with each other in the
remaining proceedings.

1

a.

2

Paragraph 4 lists and describes right to sue notices from the EEOC and the DFEH.

Paragraph 4

3

Defendant states that the documents speak for themselves, but it objects to the “argumentative

4

analysis” and description of these documents. Defendant’s objections show that there is no

5

dispute that EEOC and DFEH issued right to sue notices.
The purpose of the “undisputed facts” section of the pre-trial order is to identify facts that

6
7

are truly undisputed. In order to give effect to the Defendant’s position and the purpose of

8

undisputed facts, the Court will change and reposition Paragraph 4. The current language of

9

Paragraph 4 will be renumbered as Section III(B), Paragraph 18 under Plaintiff’s Disputed Facts.

10

A new Section III(A), Paragraph 4 will be inserted and read: “On or about July 12, 2013, October

11

1, 2015, and January 17, 2017, the Unites States Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission

12

(“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) issued

13

Plaintiff right-to-sue notices with respect to plaintiff’s complaints against Union Pacific.”

14

b.

15

Union Pacific objects that it does not agree to this language. If Defendant does not agree,

License Renewal Meetings

16

the fact cannot be undisputed. In order to give effect to the purpose of “undisputed facts,”

17

Paragraph 5 will be stricken from Section III(A) and renumbered as Section III(B), Paragraph 19

18

under Plaintiff’s Disputed Facts. .

19

2.

20

Plaintiff’s Witnesses
Defendant objects that 4 witnesses under Plaintiff’s list that are improper. Specifically,

21

Defendant objects that: identifying “unknown urgent care physicians” does not provide adequate

22

notice, Defendant’s former counsel is not a proper witness, and two persons most knowledgeable

23

are improper because Plaintiff never conducted Rule 30(b)(6) discovery.

24

Given the nature of these objections, the Court finds that the objections are better resolved

25

through the motions in limine process. Therefore, Defendants objections to these 4 witnesses will

26

be renumbered and considered as Defendant’s Motion In Limine 6. Plaintiff shall file any

27

appropriate response (non-opposition or opposition) as provided by the pre-trial order’s motion in

28

limine schedule.
2

1

3.

2

Plaintiff’s Exhibits
Defendant explains that it intends to object to many exhibits, but recognizes that a meet

3

and confer session with Plaintiff will occur. Defendant states that it raises the objections out of an

4

abundance of caution.
The Court will note Defendant’s objections, but will not modify the pre-trial order or rule

5
6

on the objections at this time..

7
8

DEFENDANT’S OMITTED WITNESS

9

Defendant states that it mistakenly omitted Rodney Doerr from its witness list. Doerr is

10

represented to be the Vice President of Safety and Chief Safety Officer for Defendant. Defendant

11

represents that Doerr corresponded with Plaintiff in 2013. Because Defendant has brought the

12

omission of Doerr to the attention of the Court within the time specified for objecting to the pre-

13

trial order, the Court will add Rodney Doerr to Section VII(B) as Defendant’s witness 25.

14

However, the addition of Doerr does not mean that he will actually be called as a witness, nor does

15

it mean that Plaintiff cannot object to Mr. Doerr or his testimony.

16
17

ORDER

18

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1.

20
21

Rodney Doerr is added as witness 25 under Section VII(B) of the December 14, 2017 Pretrial order (Doc. No. 132);

2.

Defendant’s objections to four listed Plaintiff’s witnesses are deemed Defendant’s Motion

22

In Limine No. 6, and Plaintiff shall respond in accordance with the current motions in

23

limine schedule;

24

3.

Section III(A), Paragraph 5 of the Pre-Trial Order is STRICKEN from that part of the Pre-

25

Trial Order, and is RE-INSERTED as Section III(B), Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff’s Disputed

26

Facts; and

27
28

4.

Section III(A), Paragraph 4 is STRICKEN and RE-INSERTED as Section III(B),
Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Disputed Facts; and
3

1

5.

Section III(A), Paragraph 4 shall now read: “On or about July 12, 2013, October 1, 2015,

2

and January 17, 2017, the Unites States Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission

3

(“EEOC”) and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”)

4

issued Plaintiff right-to-sue notices with respect to plaintiff’s complaints against Union

5

Pacific.”

6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 22, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4