Ross v. Global Wine Company et al

Filing 80

ORDER ON 44 , 60 MOTIONS IN LIMINE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/4/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4

No. C 09-6107 CW
KIMBERLEY ROSS,

5

ORDER ON MOTIONS IN
LIMINE

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
GLOBAL WINE COMPANY and JOHN DAVIS,
8
Defendants.
9

/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
The Court rules on Plaintiff Kimberley Ross’s and Defendant
11
Global Wine Company’s motions in limine as follows:
12
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine
13
14

1.

Exclude testimony about Plaintiff’s prior employment
discipline and criticism

15

GRANTED, except that Global Wine may offer evidence of
Plaintiff’s use of the “f-word” while on the job.

16
17

2.

18

Exclude Plaintiff’s undated greeting card to Simon Littler
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Global Wine may offer
only the fourth paragraph of the card, which concerns
Plaintiff’s panic attacks; the remainder of the card is
excluded as irrelevant.

19
20
21
22

Global Wine’s Motions in Limine
1.

Bifurcate trial for punitive damages and exclude any evidence
of Global Wine’s financial condition.

23
24
25
26
27
28

DENIED. Global Wine cites California Civil Code section
3295(d), asserting that bifurcation is mandatory. However,
section 3295(d), which mandates bifurcation, is contrary to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), which grants federal
courts discretion to bifurcate trials; thus, section 3295(d)
is inoperative in federal court. See Hamm v. Am. Home Prods.
Corp., 888 F. Supp. 1037, 1038 (E.D. Cal. 1995). Global Wine
does not establish that, absent bifurcation, it will suffer
unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise
its discretion to bifurcate this trial.

1

2.

Exclude any testimony, evidence or opinions related to the
substance of Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment.

2
DENIED. Plaintiff may proffer evidence of the conduct of
which she complained.

3
4
3.

Exclude expert opinions and testimony of Matt Wright

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

GRANTED. Wright’s testimony will not assist the jury in
determining a fact in issue. Plaintiff can testify as to why
it was necessary to have access to the back-end data, and
Davis can rebut this testimony. Further, Wright is not
qualified to offer expert opinion. Although he has worked six
years in the “Quality Assurance profession,” he does not
explain how this experience qualifies him to opine on
appropriate business practices. Finally, Wright’s expert
report does not have indicia of reliability. He does not
indicate what in his experience led him to conclude that it
was a poor business practice to deny Plaintiff access to backend data.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: 5/4/2011
14

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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