Hill v. Bayer HealthCare LLC

Filing 73

NTOICE OF QUESTIONS re 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment/Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 6, 2010. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LAVON HILL, JR., Plaintiff, v. BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and DOES 120, Defendants. / TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 9, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court's questions contained herein. NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT No. C 09-00235 JSW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions: 1. Where specifically in the record are the following facts addressed or controverted? a. b. c. Plaintiff can perform all of the essential functions of his former employment with his left hand. Plaintiff can perform all of the essential functions of his former employment without using a brace. Bayer engaged in an interactive process with Plaintiff after Dr. Chin removed Plaintiff's necessary restrictions. 2. Do the two reports from Dr. Chin create a disputed issue of fact regarding whether Plaintiff was actually permanently disabled and unable to perform the essential functions of his former employment? How does Plaintiff respond to the analysis of Quinn v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Cal. App. 4th 472, 482-83 (2000), in which the court found that it was entirely within the discretion of the employer to set physical criteria for the hiring process? Does Bayer have unfettered discretion to set its standard operating procedures in compliance with regulatory requirements? Do the parties have anything further they wish to address? IT IS SO ORDERED. 3. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. Dated: April 6, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?