Romero et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 148

TENTATIVE ORDER REGARDING OPENING JURY INSTRUCTIONS re 140 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Dolly Goel, Bridget Phillips, Adella Garland, Fritz Moritz, and County of Santa Clara. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/22/2014. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LUKE ROMERO,

Case No. 11-cv-04812-WHO

Plaintiff,
8
v.

TENTATIVE ORDER REGARDING
OPENING JURY INSTRUCTIONS

9
10

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 140

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
The parties have filed proposed opening and closing jury instructions. Dkt. No. 140. The

12
13

parties agree on proposed opening jury instructions 1 through 3 and 5 through 17. The parties

14

disagree on proposed opening jury instruction 4. I intend to adopt the agreed upon proposed jury

15

instructions and, subject to argument by the parties at the pretrial conference, I also intend to adopt

16

the following opening jury instruction 4.

17

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4

18

CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of the positions of the

19
20
21

parties.
Plaintiff Dr. Luke Romero is an anesthesiologist. He claims that Defendants Santa Clara

22

County, Dr. Friedrich Moritz, Dr. Bridget Phillip, Dr. Adella Garland, and Dr. Dolly Goel

23

retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity under California’s Fair Employment and

24

Housing Act (FEHA), California Labor Code section 1102.5, California Health & Safety Code

25

section 1278.5, and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Dr. Romero claims

26

that after he made complaints about discrimination, harassment, mismanagement, and deficient

27

patient care at the Santa Clara County hospital where he worked, his own patient care was

28

subjected to unfair peer reviews by his colleagues. “Peer review” is a process by which a

1

physician’s patient care is analyzed and evaluated by other physicians with similar training. Dr.

2

Romero has the burden of proving his claims by a preponderance of the evidence.

3

Defendants deny Dr. Romero’s claims. Defendants allege that Dr. Romero made his

4

complaints at the same time the hospital was implementing a new and more rigorous peer review

5

policy that applied to all physicians and that Dr. Romero’s patient care would have been reviewed

6

even if he had not made the complaints.

7
8

Court’s analysis: This is based on the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.2 and

9

substantially similar to defendants’ proposed instruction. Defendants’ objections to plaintiffs’

10

proposed instruction are well-taken.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 22, 2014
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

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