Moore et al v. Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al

Filing 159

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION; SETTING HEARING DATE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/18/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DAVID MOORE,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 07-03850 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
LEAVE TO FILE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION ON PUNITIVE
DAMAGES AND DISABILITY
DISCRIMINATION; SETTING
HEARING DATE

v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,
Defendant.

/

13
14

On April 10, 2012 the Court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on

15

reinstatement and damages. Dkt. 148. The Court found that Gilead would have had a legal basis to

16

terminate Moore on November 22, 2010, when Gilead discovered Moore’s efforts to erase company

17

hard drives. As such, the Court held that Moore was ineligible for reinstatement and that any backpay

18

resulting from his four causes of action would be limited to his pre-November 22, 2010 employment.

19

The Court also denied Moore’s motion for partial summary judgment on the fourth of his four causes

20

of action: alleged violations of New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights

21

Ordinances because of his disability. The Court found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact

22

as to whether Moore was disabled, given the record at the time.

23

On August 8, 2012, at a case management conference, defendant suggested that it wished to file

24

an additional summary judgment motion on punitive damages and the Court directed the parties to

25

submit letter briefs regarding the proposed motion. Defendant’s letter brief, filed with the Court on

26

August 24, 2012, contends that punitive damages are not available as a matter of law for three of

27

Moore’s four causes of action. Defendant also argues that newly available expert deposition testimony

28

reveals that there is no longer a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Moore is disabled.

1

Defendant claims that expert depositions taken after the initial summary judgment motions were due

2

prove that Moore is not disabled. Plaintiff’s principal response, filed September 7, 2012 with the Court,

3

is that defendant has not presented any new facts, but instead seeks to relitigate the Court’s prior ruling

4

that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Moore is disabled.
The Court finds that defendant has directed the Court to newly available expert testimony that

6

may resolve the disputed status of Moore’s disability. Additionally, a summary judgment motion on

7

punitive damages would narrow the issues for trial. Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant

8

leave to file a partial summary judgment motion on punitive damages and disability discrimination.

9

Defendant’s motion is due by September 21, 2012, any opposition from plaintiff by October 5, 2012,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

and any reply by October 10, 2012. Hearing on defendant’s motion is set for October 16, 2012, at

11

3:30 p.m.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: September 18, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2