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)

Download PDF
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

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?