Mility v. County of Kern et al

Filing 63

PRETRIAL ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/2/2020. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KERNEL MILITY,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-0446 - JLT
PRETRIAL ORDER
Motions in Limine Filing: 3/27/2020
Oppositions to Motions in Limine: 4/3/2020
Hearing on Motions in Limine: 4/13/2020
Trial Submissions: 4/24/2020
Jury trial: 4/27/2020 at 8:30 a.m., 5-7 days

Kernel Mility asserts that during his employment with the County, he suffered discrimination

17
18

and harassment from several coworkers and his supervisor, including Chris Rodriguez, Phil Taylor,

19

Richard Carillo, and Dave Langella. (See generally Doc. 43)

20

A.

JURISDICTION/ VENUE
This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. The venue is proper in the

21
22

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

23

B.

UNDISPUTED FACTS
1.

24

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant County as an extra-help maintenance worker from

25

November 16, 2015, until August 22, 2016.

26

C.

DISPUTED FACTS

27

Plaintiff

28

1.

Whether Plaintiff’s race was a motivating/determining factor in relation to the
1

1

harassment Plaintiff was subjected to while employed by the County.

2

2.

Whether Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race.

3

3.

Whether Plaintiff complained about the racial harassment and to whom.

4

4.

Whether Plaintiff suffered retaliation at the workplace.

5

5.

Whether Plaintiff’s race was a motivating/determining factor in the County’s decision

6

not to re-hire Plaintiff.

7

6.

8

Defendant

9

1.

10

Whether the County not re-hiring Plaintiff was intended to be retaliation against him.

Whether Plaintiff’s race was a motivating/determining factor in relation to the

harassment Plaintiff was subjected to while employed by the County.

11

2.

Whether Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race.

12

3.

Whether Plaintiff complained about the racial harassment and to whom.

13

4.

Whether Plaintiff suffered retaliation.

14

5.

Whether County exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct any harassment.

15

6.

Whether Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective

16

opportunities provided by County to correct the problem.

17

7.

Whether County had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to not re-hire Plaintiff.

18

8.

Whether Defendant “Taylor” is a “supervisor” as that term is used under Title VII/ 42

19

U.S.C. section 1983.

20

D.

Except for jurisdiction and venue, all other issues are disputed.

21
22

DISPUTED LEGAL ISSUES

E.

DISPUTED EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
None identified. However, the parties indicate, contrarily, that they wish to file motions in

23
24

limine. This is insufficient. L.R. 281(5).

25

F.

RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff seeks damages, costs and fees. The defendants seek a defense verdict, costs and

26
27

attorney fees for defense of this action.

28

///
2

1

G.

ABANDONED ISSUES
None.

2
3
4

H.

WITNESSES
1.

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including

5

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS

6

SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A

7

SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST

8

INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(10).

9

Plaintiff

10

1.

Kernel Mility

11

2.

Phil Taylor

12

3.

Richard Carillo

13

4.

Dave Langella

14

5.

Chris Rodriguez

15

6.

David Harding

16

7.

David Sierra

17

8.

Joe Ayala

18

9.

Tim Castillo

19

10.

Barrett Gettig

20

11.

Jonathon Davis

21

12.

Guillermo Garcia

22

13.

A.J. Arizmendez

23

14.

James Neabauer

24

15.

Debbie Davis

25

16.

Krisianne Sergeant

26

17.

Jeff Harp

27

Defendants

28

1.

Kernel Mility
3

1

2.

Richard Carillo

2

3.

Phil Taylor

3

4.

Chris Rodriguez

4

5.

Dave Langella

5

6.

Dave Sierra

6

7.

James Neabaver

7

8.

AJ Armendariz

8

9.

Tim Castillo

9

10.

Debbie Davis

10

11.

Sheila Scales

11

12.

Joe Ayala

12

13.

Guillermo Garcia

13

14.

Cindy Uetz

14

15.

Dave Hardin

15

16.

Barrett Gettig

16

17.

David Harding

17

18.

Devin Brown

18

19.

Joe Rowland

19

1.

The court does not allow undisclosed witnesses to be called for any purpose, including

20

impeachment or rebuttal, unless they meet the following criteria:
a.

21
22

of rebutting evidence that could not be reasonably anticipated at the pretrial conference, or
b.

23
24
25

The party offering the witness demonstrates that the witness is for the purpose

The witness was discovered after the pretrial conference and the proffering

party makes the showing required in paragraph B, below.
2.

Upon the post pretrial discovery of any witness a party wishes to present at trial, the

26

party SHALL promptly inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of the unlisted witnesses

27

so the court may consider whether the witnesses SHALL be permitted to testify at trial. The witnesses

28

will not be permitted unless:
4

a.

The witness could not reasonably have been discovered prior to the discovery

b.

The court and opposing parties were promptly notified upon discovery of the

5

c.

If time permitted, the party proffered the witness for deposition; and

6

d.

If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of the witness’s testimony was

1
2

deadline;

3
4

witness;

7

provided to opposing parties.

8

I.

EXHIBITS, SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES
The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at trial.

9

NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE ADMITTED

10
11

UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE

12

MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).
1.

13
14

criteria:
a.

15
16

The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that the exhibit is for the purpose

of rebutting evidence that could not have been reasonably anticipated, or
b.

17
18

For a party to use an undisclosed exhibit for any purpose, they must meet the following

The exhibit was discovered after the issuance of this order and the proffering

party makes the showing required in paragraph 2, below.
2.

19

Upon the discovery of exhibits after the discovery cutoff, a party SHALL promptly

20

inform the court and opposing parties of the existence of such exhibits so that the court may consider

21

their admissibility at trial. The exhibits will not be received unless the proffering party demonstrates

22

each of the following:

23

a.

The exhibits could not reasonably have been discovered earlier;

24

b.

The court and the opposing parties were promptly informed of their existence;

25

c.

The proffering party forwarded a copy of the exhibits (if physically possible) to

26

the opposing party. If the exhibits may not be copied the proffering party must show that it has made

27

the exhibits reasonably available for inspection by the opposing parties.

28

///
5

1

Plaintiff

2

1.

Statement to Phil Taylor from David Sierra

3

2.

EEOC Charge of Discrimination of Kernel Mility

4

3.

Typewritten statement dated 4/10/16

5

4.

Witness Statement about incident the week of May 9, 2015

6

5.

Email from Castillo to Taylor dated 12/2315

7

6.

Witness statement dated 12/22/15 from Barrett Gettig

8

7.

Email from Gettig to David Harding dated 6/14/16

9

8.

Typewritten note to Debbie Davis from Kernel Mility dated 6/21/16

10

9.

Typewritten note to Debbie Davis from Kernel Mility regarding 6/8/16 incident

11

10.

Typewritten note dated 5/5/16 from Kernel Mility regarding “Re-occuring Incidence of

12

Harassment”

13

11.

Incident Report to Debbie Davis from Kernel Mility dated 6/14/16

14

12.

Witness Statement regarding incident on 4/29/16

15

13.

Typewritten statement of Kernel Mility regarding safety concerns.

16

14.

Kern County Dept of Human Services Allegation of Hostile Work Environment by

17
18
19
20
21

Kernel Mility dated 5/18/16
15.

Typewritten note to Debbie Davis dated June 8, 2016 regarding Incident of Continuous

Racist Remarks
16.

Typewritten document dated 5/20/16 regarding Phil Taylor monitoring Plaintiff’s

coming to work.

22

17.

Typewritten document dated 5/20/16 regarding speaking to Joe Ayala

23

18.

Typewritten document dated 5/18/16 concerning greeting by Sheila Scales.

24

19.

Typewritten document regarding unit meeting on 4/19/16

25

20.

EEOC Response from County of Kern dated 8/16/16

26

21.

Typewritten note about incident on 12/21/15 from Kernel Mility

27

22.

Typewritten statement regarding unit meeting conducted on 4/10/16

28

23.

Typewritten statement regarding unit meeting on 4/19/16
6

1

24.

Typewritten statement regarding incident on 5/10/16

2

25.

Handwritten note dated 8/9/16 regarding Joe Ayala

3

26.

Report from Kronick Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard dated 9/19/16 to Debbie Davis

4

including exhibits

5

27.

6

Defendant

7

1.

DHS Interoffice Memo from Debbie Davis to Kristi T. Seargeant 16-17-16

8

2.

DHS Interoffice Memo from Ralph Wenzinger to Debbie Davis 6-30-16

9

3.

DHS Interoffice Memo from Ralph Wenzinger to Debbie Davis 6-16-16

10

4.

DHS Interoffice Memo from Ralph Wenzinger to Debbie Davis 6-14-16

11

5.

DHS Interoffice Memo from Debbie Davis to Kristi T. Seargeant 6-10-16

12

6.

10/17/16 HR letter from Debbie Davis to Plaintiff;

13

7.

DFEH letter to Karen Krause, Notice to Complainant of “Right to Sue with attachments;

14

8.

EEOC letter to Karen Krause, Notice of Charge of Discrimination;

15

9.

EEOC Right to Sue letter to MILITY;

16

10.

DHS letter to Taylor, Notice of Proposed Discipline

17

11.

1/8/16 Performance Evaluation for Christopher Rodriquez;

18

12.

8/16/16 Performance Evaluation for Timothy Castillo, with attachments;

19

13.

6/28/16 Performance Evaluation for Christopher Rodriquez;

20

14.

9/16/16 Investigation Report of Mility’s Allegations;

21

15.

11/23/16 DHS Memo from Davis to Goulart;

22

16.

12/23/16 e-mail from Taylor to Uetz;

23

17.

MILITY’s summer 2016 work orders;

24

18.

12/28/15 e-mail from Taylor to Harding with attachments;

25

19.

5/10/16 e-mail from David to MILITY;

26

20.

5/10/16 e-mail from Uetz to Davis;

27

21.

5/10/16 e-mail from Davis to Harding;

28

22.

5/10/16 e-mail from Harding to Davis with attachment;

Email from David Harding to Debbie Davis dated 8/11/16

7

1

23.

5/10/16 2nd e-mail from Harding to Davis with attachment;

2

24.

5/9/16 e-mail from Harding to Davis with attachment from MILITY

3

25.

6/17/16 memo from Davis to Seargeant with audio files;

4

26.

6/17/16 memo from Davis to Seargeant with interview schedule;

5

27.

6/30/16 memo from Wenzinger to Davis re interview of Arismendez;

6

28.

6/16/16 memo from Wenzinger to Davis re interview of Tim Castillo;

7

29.

6/14/16 memo from Wenzinger to Davis re interview of Jonathon Davis;

8

30.

6/10/16 memo from Wenzinger to Davis re investigative report of Jeff Harp;

9

31.

11/23/16 memo from Davis to Goulart re MILITY’s charge of discrimination;

10

32.

6/17/16 letter from Davis to Seargeant with audio files;

11

33.

Various e-mails regarding or concern MILITY and/or his allegation of discrimination;

12

34.

E-mails in the e-mail field of MILITY at [e-mail];

13

35.

Copy of MILITY’s HR Personnel file;

14

36.

Investigative Report of Violence against Ayala by Jeff Harp;

15

37.

Investigative Report of Hostile work Environment against MILITY by Jeff Harp;

16

38.

Kern County Hostile Work Environment Policy;

17

39

Kern County Workplace Violence Policy with attached forms;

18

40.

Statement of Receipt of Kern County Policies by JA;

19

41.

Handwritten memo regarding incidents with MILITY, on a pad from “David Janes

20
21

Company.”
On or before March 13, 2020 counsel SHALL meet and confer to discuss any disputes related

22

to the above listed exhibits and to pre-mark and examining each other’s exhibits. Any exhibits not

23

previously disclosed in discovery SHALL be provided via e-mail or overnight delivery so that it is

24

received by March 6, 2020.

25

1.

At the exhibit conference, counsel will determine whether there are objections to the

26

admission of each of the exhibits and will prepare separate indexes; one listing joint exhibits, one

27

listing Plaintiffs’ exhibits and one listing Defendant’s exhibits. In advance of the conference, counsel

28

must have a complete set of their proposed exhibits in order to be able to fully discuss whether
8

1

evidentiary objections exist. Thus, any exhibit not previously provided in discovery SHALL be

2

provided at least five court days in advance of the exhibit conference.
2.

3

At the conference, counsel SHALL identify any duplicate exhibits, i.e., any document

4

which both sides desire to introduce into evidence. These exhibits SHALL be marked as a joint exhibit

5

and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits SHALL be admitted into without further foundation.
All Joint exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers preceded by the designation “JT” (e.g. JT/1,

6
7

JT/2, etc.). Plaintiffs’ exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 1 by the designation

8

PX (e.g. PX1, PX2, etc.). Defendant’s exhibits will be pre-marked with numbers beginning with 501

9

preceded by the designation DX (e.g. DX501, DX502, etc.). The parties SHALL number each page of

10

any exhibit exceeding one page in length (e.g. PX1-1, PX1-2, PX1-3, etc.).
If originals of exhibits are unavailable, the parties may substitute legible copies. If any

11
12

document is offered that is not fully legible, the Court may exclude it from evidence.
Each joint exhibit binder SHALL contain an index which is placed in the binder before the

13
14

exhibits. The index SHALL consist of a column for the exhibit number, one for a description of the

15

exhibit and one column entitled “Admitted in Evidence” (as shown in the example below).
INDEX OF EXHIBITS

16
17

EXHIBIT#

ADMITTED
IN EVIDENCE

DESCRIPTION

18
3.

19

As to any exhibit which is not a joint exhibit but to which there is no objection to its

20

introduction, the exhibit will likewise be appropriately marked, i.e., as PX1, or as DX501 and will be

21

indexed as such on the index of the offering party. Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction

22

and motion of the party, without further foundation.
4.

23

Each exhibit binder SHALL contain an index which is placed in the binder before the

24

exhibits. Each index SHALL consist of the exhibit number, the description of the exhibit and the three

25

columns as shown in the example below.

26

///

27

///

28

///
9

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

1
2

EXHIBIT#

DESCRIPTION

ADMITTED
IN EVIDENCE

OBJECTION
FOUNDATION

OTHER
OBJECTION

3
5.

4
5

On the index, as to exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation, counsel

will place a mark under the column heading entitled “Admissible but for Foundation.”
6.

6

On the index, as to exhibits to which there are objections to admissibility that are not

7

based solely on a lack of foundation, counsel will place a mark under the column heading entitled

8

“Other Objections.”
After the exhibit conference, Plaintiff and counsel for the defendants SHALL develop four

9
10

complete, legible sets of exhibits. The parties SHALL deliver three sets of their exhibit binders to the

11

Courtroom Clerk and provide one set to their opponent, no later than 4:00 p.m., on April 24, 2020.

12

Counsel SHALL determine which of them will also provide three sets of the joint exhibits to the

13

Courtroom Clerk.

14

7.

15

J.

The Parties SHALL number each page of any exhibit exceeding one page in length.

POST-TRIAL EXHIBIT RETENTION
Unless they object at the conclusion of the trial, counsel who introduced exhibits at trial

16
17

SHALL retrieve the original exhibits from the courtroom deputy following the verdict in the case. The

18

parties’ counsel SHALL retain possession of and keep safe all exhibits until final judgment and all

19

appeals are exhausted.

20

K.

21

DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS
The following is a list of discovery documents – portions of depositions, answers to

22

interrogatories, and responses to requests for admissions – that the parties expect to offer at trial.

23

NO DISCOVERY DOCUMENT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE

24

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER

25

SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local

26

Rule 281(b)(12).

27
28

The parties have not identified any specific discovery document they may use but refer,
generally, to such documents. This is insufficient. L.R. 281(12).
10

1

L.

The parties indicate they wish to file motions in limine without describing what these motions

2
3

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

are. This is insufficient. L.R. 281(5).
Any party may file motions in limine. The purpose of a motion in limine is to establish in

4
5

advance of the trial that certain evidence should not be offered at trial. “Although the Federal Rules of

6

Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the district

7

court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2

8

(1984); Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997). The Court

9

will grant a motion in limine, and thereby bar use of the evidence in question, only if the moving party

10

establishes that the evidence clearly is not admissible for any valid purpose. Id.

11

Before filing any motion in limine, counsel SHALL meet and confer to determine whether they

12

can resolve any disputes and avoid filing motions in limine. The conference should be in person but, if

13

this is not possible, it SHALL be telephonic. Written meet-and-confer conferences are unacceptable.

14

Along with their motions in limine, the parties SHALL file a certification detailing the conference

15

such to demonstrate counsel have in good faith met and conferred and attempted to resolve the

16

dispute. Failure to provide the certification may result in the Court refusing to entertain the

17

motion.
Any motions in limine must be filed with the Court by March 27, 2020. The motion must

18
19

clearly identify the nature of the evidence that the moving party seeks to prohibit the other side from

20

offering at trial. Any opposition to the motion must be served on the other party and filed with the

21

Court by April 3, 2020. The Court sets a hearing on the motions in limine on April 13, 2020, at 10:00

22

a.m. Counsel may appear via teleconference by dialing [phone] and entering Access Code

23

1652736, provided the Magistrate Judge's Courtroom Deputy Clerk receives a written notice of the

24

intent to appear telephonically no later than five court days before the noticed hearing date.
The parties are reminded they may still object to the introduction of evidence during trial.

25
26

M.

None.

27
28

FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

///
11

1

N.

None.

2
3

O.

AMENDMENTS/ DISMISSALS
None.

4
5

STIPULATIONS

P.

SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
The parties have had no substantive discussion about settlement. No later than March 9, 2020,

6
7

the plaintiff SHALL submit to Defendant via fax or e-mail, a written itemization of damages and a

8

meaningful1 settlement demand which includes a brief explanation of why such a settlement is

9

appropriate. Thereafter, no later March 20, 2020, the defendants SHALL respond via fax or e-mail,

10

with an acceptance of the offer or with a meaningful counteroffer, which includes a brief explanation of

11

why such a settlement is appropriate. The parties SHALL continue to exchange counteroffers until

12

it is no longer productive.
If all parties wish to engage in a settlement conference, they SHALL immediately file a joint

13
14

request and propose dates for the conference.

15

Q.

None.

16
17

R.

S.

T.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Each side will seek fees if successful.

22
23

APPOINTMENT OF IMPARTIAL EXPERTS
None.

20
21

SEPARATE TRIAL OF ISSUES
None.

18
19

AGREED STATEMENT

U.

TRIAL DATE/ ESTIMATED LENGTH OF TRIAL

24

A jury trial is set for April 27, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston at

25

the United States Courthouse, 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Trial is expected to last five to

26

seven days.

27
28

1
“Meaningful” means the offer is reasonably calculated to settle the case on terms acceptable to the offering party.
“Meaningful” does not include an offer which the offering party knows will not be acceptable to the other party.

12

1

V.

TRIAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSIONS

2

1.

3

The parties are relieved of their obligation under Local Rule 285 to file trial briefs. If any party

4

wishes to file a trial brief, they must do so in accordance with Local Rule 285 and be filed on or before

5

April 13, 2020.

6

2.

7

The parties SHALL file their proposed voir dire questions, in accordance with Local Rule

8
9
10

Trial Briefs

Jury Voir Dire

162.1, on or before April 3, 2020.
3.

Jury Instructions & Verdict Form

The parties SHALL serve, via e-mail or fax, their proposed jury instructions in accordance with

11

Local Rule 163 and their proposed verdict form on one another no later than March 13, 2020. The

12

parties SHALL conduct a conference to address their proposed jury instructions and verdict form no

13

later than March 27, 2019. At the conference, the parties SHALL attempt to reach agreement on jury

14

instructions and verdict form for use at trial. The parties SHALL file all agreed-upon jury instructions

15

and verdict form no later than April 3, 2020 and identify such as the agreed-upon jury instructions and

16

verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL lodge via e-mail a copy of the joint jury

17

instructions and joint verdict form (in Word format) to [e-mail].

18

If and only if, the parties after a genuine, reasonable and good faith effort, cannot agree upon

19

certain specific jury instructions and verdict form, the parties SHALL file their respective proposed

20

(disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict form no later than April 3, 2020 and

21

identify such as the disputed jury instructions and verdict forms. At the same time, the parties SHALL

22

lodge via e-mail, a copy of his/their own (disputed) jury instructions and proposed (disputed) verdict

23

form (in Word format) to [e-mail].

24

In selecting proposed instructions, the parties SHALL use Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury

25

Instructions or California’s CACI instructions to the extent possible. All jury instructions and verdict

26

forms SHALL indicate the party submitting the instruction or verdict form (i.e., joint, plaintiff’s,

27

defendant’s, etc.), the number of the proposed instruction in sequence, a brief title for the instruction

28

describing the subject matter, the complete text of the instruction, and the legal authority supporting the
13

1

instruction. Each instruction SHALL be numbered.

2

W.

OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER
Any party may, within 10 days after the date of service of this order, file and serve written

3
4

objections to any of the provisions set forth in this order. Such objections SHALL clearly specify the

5

requested modifications, corrections, additions or deletions.

6

X.

None.

7
8

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

Y.

COMPLIANCE

9

Strict compliance with this order and its requirements is mandatory. All parties and their

10

counsel are subject to sanctions, including dismissal or entry of default, for failure to fully comply with

11

this order and its requirements.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 2, 2020

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14