Berndt et al v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 821

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER by Judge Hamilton (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARTHA BERNDT, et al.,

v.

9
10
11

Case No. 03-cv-3174-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8

FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this final pretrial

14
15

order is hereby entered and shall control the course of the trial unless modified by a

16

subsequent order.

17

I.

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

18

A.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 1

19

At the pretrial conference, plaintiffs indicated that they have withdrawn this motion

20

to exclude or limit the testimony of Dr. Renee Binder. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED

21

as moot.

22

B.

23

Plaintiffs’ second motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff Berndt’s

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 2

24

concerns about the death of her therapist is DENIED, as the court finds that plaintiff

25

Berndt has placed her mental state at issue by seeking emotional distress damages.

26

C.

27

Plaintiffs’ third motion in limine to exclude evidence of defendants’ subsequent

28

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 3

remedial measures is GRANTED, as defendants indicated at the pretrial conference that

1

they do not oppose the motion.

2

D.

3

Plaintiffs’ fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence of workers’ compensation

4

insurance or disability payments paid to plaintiffs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

5

part. As discussed at the pretrial conference, the court finds that workers’ compensation

6

benefits and disability benefits should not be given the same treatment, and thus finds

7

that evidence of workers’ compensation benefits shall be inadmissible, while evidence of

8

disability payments shall be admissible.

9
10

E.

Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine No. 4

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1

Defendants’ first motion in limine to limit plaintiffs’ claims to the statute of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

limitations period based on their administrative exhaustion dates is GRANTED in part and

12

DENIED in part. As discussed at the pretrial conference, plaintiffs’ claims are limited to

13

the following temporal scope: plaintiff Berndt’s claims run from May 24, 1997 to July 13,

14

2002 (her last day of employment); and plaintiff Curry’s claims run from February 1, 2001

15

to September 3, 2003 (her last day of employment).

16

F.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2

17

Defendants’ second motion in limine to exclude evidence of harassment allegedly

18

experienced by third parties is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. As discussed at

19

the pretrial conference, evidence of third-party harassment may be relevant to proving

20

the severity/pervasiveness of the alleged harassment and the reasonableness of

21

defendants’ response. That said, any evidence of harassment of third parties must meet

22

the following conditions: (1) the third party must have complained, either formally or

23

informally, to a supervisor about the alleged harassment; (2) the alleged harassment

24

must have occurred at the same prison where one of the plaintiffs worked (i.e., either

25

Pelican Bay State Prison or California State Prison – Sacramento); (3) the alleged

26

harassment must have occurred during the time when the plaintiffs were employed by

27

defendants (i.e., the same time periods mentioned in the previous paragraph).

28

Additionally, as discussed at the pretrial conference, to the extent that plaintiffs
2

1

intend to present evidence of third-party harassment suffered by former plaintiffs to this

2

action, the court directs the parties to meet and confer regarding whether the relevant

3

settlement agreements permit those former plaintiffs to testify. The parties shall submit a

4

stipulation regarding the former plaintiffs’ ability to testify, and if the parties fail to agree to

5

a stipulation, they shall submit the settlement agreements themselves, along with a joint

6

letter brief setting forth each party’s position. The parties must file either a stipulation or

7

the settlements and joint letter brief by August 31, 2015. The joint letter brief shall not

8

exceed five (5) pages.

9
10

G.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3

Defendants’ third motion in limine to exclude the Office of the Inspector General

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

investigation report is DENIED, as the time period covered by the report overlaps with the

12

relevant time period as set forth in section I.E of this order.

13

H.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4

14

Defendants’ fourth motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to the attack on

15

plaintiff Curry is DENIED, as the court finds that such evidence is not barred as a matter

16

of law by workers’ compensation preemption. And further, whether the attack was

17

motivated by Curry’s gender, and was therefore harassment based on sex, is a question

18

for the jury.

19

I.

20

Defendants’ fifth motion in limine to exclude evidence of subsequent remedial

21

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 5

measures is GRANTED, as it seeks the same relief as plaintiffs’ third motion in limine.

22

J.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 6

23

Defendants’ sixth motion in limine to exclude the testimony and evidence of

24

Monique Beaver is GRANTED. The evidence is in the form of charts purporting to

25

summarize the incidents of harassment at defendants’ prisons, but as discussed at the

26

pretrial conference, the charts are inadmissible because they cover a time period broader

27

than the period covered by plaintiffs’ claims, and because they cover incidents occurring

28

at prisons where neither of the plaintiffs worked. Moreover, the charts do not provide the
3

1

court with any basis to determine whether the underlying documents have been produced

2

in this litigation, and thus do not comport with Federal Rule of Evidence 1006.

3

However, as discussed at the pretrial conference, plaintiffs may be permitted to

4

offer a demonstrative that summarizes the relevant evidence, as long as the

5

demonstrative is limited to the relevant time period and to the relevant prisons, and

6

clearly identifies where the underlying documents have been produced in this case. If

7

plaintiffs intend to offer such a demonstrative, they must provide a copy to defendants

8

and to the court by September 8, 2015.

9

With regard to Ms. Beaver herself, plaintiffs have not identified any matters (other
than the charts and documents themselves) for which she may be offered as a percipient

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

witness. Plaintiffs have provided no authority for the proposition that a member of a

12

party’s legal team may review documents and then be offered as a witness to testify as to

13

the contents of those documents, about which she has no personal knowledge. If

14

plaintiffs are able to locate any such authority, they may provide it along with their

15

corrected witness list. Absent such authority, Ms. Beaver’s testimony is inadmissible.

16

K.

17

Defendants’ seventh motion in limine to exclude witnesses that were not

18

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 7

previously disclosed or timely disclosed is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

19

To the extent that defendants seek relief based on the late filing of plaintiffs’

20

amended witness list, the motion is denied. Although the amended witness list was filed

21

late, there was no prejudice to defendants. However, as discussed at the pretrial

22

conference and in the court’s order dated July 22, 2015, any future late filings will be

23

stricken and disregarded.

24

Regarding witnesses who were not disclosed either in plaintiffs’ Rule 26

25

disclosures or some other fashion, plaintiffs shall be given one week to file a corrected

26

witness list that identifies where each witness was disclosed to defendants, as discussed

27

at the pretrial conference. If the witness was disclosed in a pleading filed with the court,

28

the corrected list shall cite to that filing. If the witness was disclosed in discovery
4

1

exchanged between the parties, plaintiffs shall provide a copy of that discovery to the

2

court. Other than plaintiff Sophia Curry, plaintiffs shall not be permitted to add any new

3

witnesses to the corrected list. Plaintiffs’ corrected list must be filed by August 24, 2015,

4

and defendants shall have until August 31, 2015 to file any objections. If plaintiffs’

5

corrected list fails to adequately identify where any witnesses were disclosed during

6

discovery, those witnesses shall be excluded.

7

L.

8

Defendants’ eighth motion in limine to exclude exhibits that were not previously

9
10

disclosed or timely disclosed is GRANTED, though as discussed at the pretrial
conference, plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to cure the deficiencies.
Plaintiffs shall have one week to file a corrected exhibit list which specifically

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 8

12

identifies, by Bates number, where in discovery each exhibit was disclosed. The

13

corrected list must also include a sponsoring witness for each exhibit, and must remove

14

any duplicate exhibits. Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to add any new exhibits to the

15

corrected list. Plaintiffs’ corrected list must be filed by August 24, 2015, and defendants

16

shall have until August 31, 2015 to file any objections. If plaintiffs’ corrected list fails to

17

adequately identify where any exhibits were disclosed during discovery, those exhibits

18

shall be excluded.

19

M.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 9

20

Defendants’ ninth motion in limine to exclude evidence related to other claims

21

raised in this case that have been disposed of is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part,

22

based on the same limitations set forth in section I.F of this memo. To the extent that the

23

disposed-of claims relate to the same time period as plaintiffs’ claims and the same

24

prison where either of the plaintiffs were employed, and to the extent not barred by the

25

relevant settlement agreements, such evidence shall be admissible.

26

II.

WITNESSES

27

As discussed above, plaintiffs are ordered to file a corrected witness list by

28

August 24, 2015, and defendants shall have until August 31, 2015 to file any objections.
5

1

If plaintiffs’ corrected list fails to adequately identify where any witnesses were disclosed

2

during discovery, those witnesses shall be excluded.

3

III.

EXHIBITS
As discussed above, plaintiffs are ordered to file a corrected exhibit list by August

4
5

24, 2015, and defendants shall have until August 31, 2015 to file any objections. If

6

plaintiffs’ corrected list fails to adequately identify where any exhibits were disclosed

7

during discovery, those exhibits shall be excluded.

8

IV.

DISCOVERY EXCERPTS
As discussed at the pretrial conference, to the extent that plaintiffs designate

10

testimony from trial transcripts in the Freitag litigation, those transcripts must be provided

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

to defendants. The deadline for providing those transcripts is August 24, 2015.

12

V.

VOIR DIRE
The court will conduct the voir dire, based on the form submitted to the parties

13
14

before the pretrial conference. After the court’s questioning, each side shall have fifteen

15

minutes to question the panel, but may not use this time to make argue their case.

16

The court will empanel eight jurors. Each side shall have three peremptory

17

challenges.

18

VI.

19
20
21

JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Regarding the joint jury instructions, the parties are directed to remove instruction

1.1B, and to remove the comment from instruction 3.2A.
Regarding plaintiffs’ proposed jury instructions, on instruction 1, the court directs

22

plaintiffs to remove the reference to FEHA and to change the singular forms to the plural,

23

where applicable.

24

As discussed at the pretrial conference, the court directs the parties to meet and

25

confer regarding plaintiffs’ proposed instructions 2, 3, and 4, all of which relate to the

26

elements for a hostile work environment claim. And as discussed at the pretrial

27

conference, the court will not approve any instructions on this topic that do not come from

28

either the Ninth Circuit model jury instructions or from the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in
6

1

Freitag.
The court rejects plaintiffs’ proposed instructions 5, 6, and 7. Regarding plaintiffs’

2
3

proposed instruction 8, the parties are directed to meet and confer and submit a joint

4

proposed instruction. Regarding plaintiffs’ proposed instruction 9, the parties are directed

5

to meet and confer and submit a joint proposed instruction taken from Ninth Circuit model

6

instruction 5.2. Finally, regarding plaintiffs’ proposed instruction 10, the parties are

7

directed to meet and confer regarding this instruction and to submit a joint proposed

8

instruction.
Turning to defendants’ proposed instructions, defendants are directed to submit a

10

revised version of instruction 1 to remove any defenses that are extraneous, or that have

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

been previously fully adjudicated by the court (such as the statute of limitations defense).

12

Defendants shall also remove the reference to non-existent “counterclaims.”

13

The court approves defendants’ proposed instruction 2.

14

The court rejects defendants’ proposed instruction 3, as it improperly places the

15

burden on plaintiffs to disprove the qualified immunity defense. Defendants shall submit

16

a revised version of this instruction.
Finally, defendants’ proposed instructions 4 and 5 cover the same ground as

17
18

plaintiffs’ proposed instructions 2, 3, and 4; namely, the elements of a hostile work

19

environment claim. The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding those

20

instructions and to submit a joint proposal.
Thus, in sum, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the jury

21
22

instructions on the elements of a Title VII hostile work environment claim and the

23

instructions related to damages issues. The parties shall submit a joint proposal by

24

August 31, 2015, and to the extent that they cannot reach agreement on certain

25

instructions, they must submit separate proposed instructions on that same date.

26

VII.

27
28

VERDICT FORMS
The court shall use the verdict form provided to the parties before the pretrial

conference. However, as discussed at the conference, there remains one outstanding
7

1

iss related to the appo
sue
ortionment of compens
o
satory dam
mages betwe defend
een
dants on the
e

2

cla
aims asserte by plaintiff Berndt. The partie shall mee and conf on this is
ed
es
et
fer
ssue, and

3

sha submit either a stip
all
e
pulation or a joint letter brief (not t exceed f
r
to
five pages) no later

4

tha August 31, 2015. The court notes that th damage question involves th same
an
n
his
es
n
he

5

iss as plain
sue
ntiffs’ proposed jury ins
struction 10 so the pa
0,
arties’ propo
osals should reflect

6

some consiste
ency betwe the proposed jury instruction and the pro
een
oposed ver
rdict form

7

question.

8

II.
VII

TRIAL SCHEDUL AND TIM LIMITS
LE
ME
The du
uration of th trial (excluding jury selection, c
he
closing arguments, jur
ry

10

ins
structions, and jury del
a
liberations) shall be 12 days (Monday, Tues
2
sday, Thurs
sday, and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Friday, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with two 15-minute b
8
o
,
breaks). Ea side sha have 27
ach
all

12

hours to prese their ca
ent
ase.

13

IX.
.

FINAL COMMENTS

14

At the pretrial con
nference, plaintiffs adv
vised the co that the parties ha reached
ourt
e
ave
d

15

an impasse with regard to the tenta
w
t
ative settlem
ment agreement of pla
aintiff Kimbe Morin’s
erly
s

16

cla
aims. If Ms. Morin’s cla
aims are to go forward they mus be tried a
o
d,
st
along with the current

17

cla
aims, so the parties will be given until Augus 24, 2015 to either fi
e
st
5
inalize the s
settlement

18

agreement an to submi a stipulati so statin or to su
nd
it
ion
ng,
ubmit pretria filings co
al
overing her

19

cla
aims. Defen
ndants’ responses to any motions in limine pertaining t Morin sh be filed
a
s
to
hall

20

by August 31 2015.
1,

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Augus 18, 2015
st
5
__
__________
__________
__________
_______
PH
HYLLIS J. H
HAMILTON
Un
nited States District Ju
s
udge

26
27
28
8