Williams v. Sysco San Francisco, Inc. et al

Filing 122

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting in part and denying in part 107 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part 108 Motion for Reconsideration (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

Northern District of California

6
7

DIWAN WILLIAMS,

No. C 10-03760 MEJ
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9

SYSCO SAN FRANCISCO, INC.,
10
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RE RULING ON EVIDENCE OF LAST
CHANCE AGREEMENTS; ORDER RE
MOTION TO AMEND EXHIBIT LIST
[Dkt. Nos. 107, 108]

13

On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff Diwan Williams filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration

14 regarding the Court’s ruling on Defendant Sysco’s motion in limine to preclude Plaintiff from
15 presenting evidence regarding “last chance agreements” offered to other Sysco employees.
16 Specifically, the Court ruled:
17
18

Plaintiff may present evidence that other employees who, like Plaintiff, were
exclusively under the new attendance policy (i.e., they were not covered under the
previous attendance policy) were provided last chance agreements after they accrued
sufficient points for termination.

19
20 Dkt. No. 106 at 5. The Court further indicated that “Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff any
21 discovery necessary regarding whether individuals who were offered last chance agreements were
22 under Defendant’s old or new attendance policy.” Id.
23

In his Motion, Plaintiff contends that on March 29, 2013, Defendant produced evidence

24 regarding the last chance agreements provided to three employees, which Plaintiff argues
25 demonstrate that the employees were similarly situated to Plaintiff in terms of whether they were
26 covered by Defendant’s new attendance policy.
27

The Court has thoroughly considered Plaintiff’s arguments and reviewed the documents

28 attached to his Motion and rules as follows.

1

It is undisputed that “Employee C” only received attendance violations under the March 2009

2 attendance policy. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s prior ruling, evidence regarding any last
3 chance agreement provided to Employee C is not precluded.
4

However, with respect to Employee A and Employee B, the Court finds that both Employees

5 had attendance violations under the pre-March 2009 attendance policy.
6

As Plaintiff acknowledges, Employee A only received one warning under the March 2009

7 policy. Thus, Employee A was not covered exclusively by the March 2009 policy, and is therefore
8 not similarly situated to Plaintiff in that respect.
9

With respect to Employee B, although Plaintiff has alleged that the 2 attendance points

10 Employee B accumulated under the pre-March 2009 policy were removed and thus not considered as

12 demonstrate that Defendant completely ignored the fact that Employee B had received points under
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 part of Employee B’s attendance points accumulated under the new policy, the evidence does not

13 both policies when deciding whether to offer a last chance agreement. Thus, the fact that Employee
14 B had at least accumulated some points under the pre-March 2009 policy is sufficient to distinguish
15 Employee B from Plaintiff such that they are not similarly-situated. While there is some dispute as to
16 the extent to which Defendant took those violations into account when determining whether to offer
17 last chance agreements, there is testimony in the record from Defendant that the confusion that
18 resulted from the transition from the old attendance policy to the new policy was taken into
19 consideration when offering last chance agreements. Moreover, because Employee B accumulated
20 points under both policies, any probative value regarding the last chance agreement offered to
21 Employee B is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, potentially misleading the
22 jury, and consideration of undue delay.
23

Accordingly, Plaintiff shall be precluded from proffering evidence or argument relating to last

24 chance agreements offered to Employee A and Employee B.
25

Plaintiff has also requested, by separate motion, to amend his exhibit list to add the documents

26 Defendant produced on March 29th. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request with respect to
27 documents relating to Employee C, but DENIES Plaintiff’s request as to documents relating to
28
2

1 Employees A and B.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4 Dated: April 5, 2013
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3