Edwards v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District et al

Filing 121

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE 47 48 49 50 51 . Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 3/15/2018. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARION EDWARDS,

Case No. 15-cv-05778-VC

Plaintiff,
ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 47-51
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants.

In June 2017, the defendants filed five unopposed motions in limine for trial. Because
Edwards has not responded to these motions as required by the Court's Standing Order for Civil
Trials, they are granted unless they are facially meritless or contradict the Court's summary
judgment ruling, as detailed below.
Motion in Limine #1
The motion is granted to the following extent: Any evidence of or arguments about
promotions that were denied after the complaint was filed on December 16, 2015 will be
excluded.
Motion in Limine #2
The motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: Although the Court will not
issue a categorical ruling that might exclude evidence that relates to Edwards's pending claims,
Edwards will not be permitted to present plainly irrelevant evidence. Evidence of the consent
decree and prior lawsuits against Salvador Llamas at his previous jobs are excluded. Any
additional "other acts" evidence that Edwards plans on introducing that relates to acts of
retaliation by other employees of Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District or acts against

employees other than Edwards will not be admissible without an offer of proof at the pretrial
conference.
Motion in Limine #3
The motion is granted. In addition to the fact that Edwards has not opposed the motion,
the proposed testimony of Patricia Howze appears irrelevant (or, at best, marginally relevant) to
the remaining claims in the case, and the motion papers strongly suggest that Edwards's counsel
improperly obstructed the deposition of Howze, preventing defense counsel from discerning
which opinions Howze might offer at trial. Nor will Edwards be permitted to elicit expert
testimony from John Harris, Larry Smith, Louis Bartholomew, Eugene King, and Lieza Paz.
Those witnesses may, of course, testify if they have relevant factual testimony.
Motion in Limine #4
This motion is denied as overbroad. Even though certain claims are no longer part of the
case, evidence of Edwards's treatment previously presented in connection with his other claims
may be relevant to the other claims going to the jury – such as retaliation – and therefore, will
not be categorically excluded. See Dkt. No. 34 at 5. Whether there was an adverse employment
action taken – and relatedly, whether there was unlawful retaliation – is a question of fact for the
jury to decide. In particular, it is difficult to understand how Edwards could be precluded from
introducing evidence about the "acting pay" controversy. If the defendants believe that specific
evidence is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, they may argue that at the pretrial
conference or at trial. Generally speaking, however, the defendants are correct that evidence
relating to the decision regarding the 2013 Superintendent position will need to be limited, and
that because no race discrimination claims remain, Edwards will not be permitted to argue that
the decision not to hire him for the 2014 and 2015 positions were race based. (At the pretrial
conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss whether it would nonetheless be
necessary/appropriate for Edwards to testify, in furtherance of his retaliation claims, that he
believed the decisions not to hire him for the 2014 and 2015 positions were race based, even
though the discrimination claims are no longer a part of the case.)

2

Motion in Limine #5
This motion is also denied as overbroad.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 15, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

3