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)

Download PDF
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

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?