Matsumoto-Herera v. Continental Casualty Company

Filing 111

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS. Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 10/9/2015. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GINGER MATSUMOTO-HERERA,

Case No. 14-cv-03626-VC

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO
EXHIBITS

9
10

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court invited the parties to request three rulings each on "bellwether exhibits" in

13

advance of trial, to streamline the process of admitting exhibits at trial. Each party has submitted

14

three objections to the other side's exhibits. The Court rules as follows:

15

Plaintiff's Objection No. 1. There is no reason to admit any of the materials in Exhibit 152

16

unless the plaintiff denies being offered outplacement assistance. If she does not, the materials

17

will be inadmissible under Rules 401 and 403. If she does, only the material from Exhibit 152

18

which relates to the offer of outplacement assistance will be admitted, and any other content must

19

be redacted.

20

Plaintiff's Objection No. 2. Exhibit 178 may be used as a demonstrative during argument.

21

Plaintiff's Objection No. 3. Exhibit 176 is excluded for the same reasons that the Court

22
23

granted the defendant's third motion in limine.
Defendant's Objection No. 1. The elimination of the Support Services Manager position is

24

admissible for context, but the legality of the defendant's decision to eliminate the position is not

25

at issue in this trial, so under Rule 403 minimal testimony and evidence will be permitted about it,

26

and Exhibit 35 will not be admitted.

27
28

Defendant's Objection No. 2. The same principle applies to the defendant's decision not to
hire the plaintiff for the Executive Administrative Assistant position, and Exhibit 32 will not be

1

admitted.

2

Defendant's Objection No. 3. The Court is aware that the defendant disagrees with its

3

limine ruling on this issue. The Court is not going to reverse the ruling, and the defendant has

4

done plenty to preserve its position. In accordance with the Court's limine ruling, Exhibits 59 and

5

60 are admissible. However, also in accordance with the limine ruling, excessive testimony about

6

Brody's performance will not be permitted, and the Court will provide the jury with something

7

akin to the alternative instruction submitted under protest by the defendant: "The fact that Olga

8

Brody was ultimately terminated as Operations Director in the San Francisco office of CNA does

9

not, in and of itself, establish that CNA discriminated against Plaintiff."

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2