Zertuche v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 124

PRETRIAL ORDER No. 2 Re Defendant's Motions in Limine No. 1-9 by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 89 Motion in Limine; denying 90 Motion in Limine; granting in part and denying in part 91 Motion in Li mine; granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion in Limine; granting 93 Motion in Limine; granting 94 Motion in Limine; granting 95 Motion in Limine; granting 96 Motion in Limine; denying 113 Motion in Limine (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

HOSETTA ZERTUCHE,

No. CV11-03691 YGR

7

Plaintiff,
v.

PRE-TRIAL ORDER
NO. 2 RE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS
IN LIMINE NO. 1-9

JAMES GLEASON,

Trial Date: November 15, 2013

8
9
10

Defendant.
11
12
13

The Motions in Limine brought by Defendant James Gleason, came on regularly for hearing

14

before the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Judge presiding, on November 8, 2013, Courtroom

15

5 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California. John L. Winchester,

16

III appeared on behalf of Defendant James Gleason and Michael E. Adams appeared on behalf of

17

Plaintiff Hosetta Zertuche.

18
19

Having considered the moving and opposing documents and evidence, the arguments of
counsel and the relevant law, the Court ORDERS as follows:

20

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 to exclude evidence of romantic

21

relationships in the office is GRANTED to the extent that the actual marital status of Defendant

22

Gleason and Ngoc Lam is not relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The motion is DENIED as to the romantic

23

relationship between the two. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 403.

24

X

25
26
27

Granted in part

Granted with Modification

X

Denied in part

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2 to exclude expert witness Sondra Zentner,
M.D.
Granted

Granted with Modification

X

Denied

28

1
CV11-03691 YGR

1

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3 to exclude evidence of "glaring" and "foot-

2

stomping" and to classify the same as adverse employment actions is GRANTED. The balance of the

3

motion is DENIED including the ability to refer to such events as generally describing the events at

4

issue.

5

X

Granted in part

Granted with Modification

X

Denied in part

6
7

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4 to exclude plaintiff’s lay opinion testimony

8

regarding "discrimination" and a "hostile work environment" is GRANTED. The motion is DENIED

9

as to "retaliation." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

10

X

Granted in part

Granted with Modification

X

Denied in part

11
12
13
14

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 5 to exclude evidence or statements
regarding settlement offers, discussions, or negotiations is unopposed and therefore GRANTED.
X

Granted

Granted with Modification

Denied

15
16

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 6 to exclude undisclosed evidence is

17

unopposed except as to information regarding wage loss and therefore GRANTED except as to

18

information regarding wage loss.

19

X

Granted

Granted with Modification

Denied

20
21
22
23

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7 to exclude witnesses from the courtroom
when not testifying is GRANTED.
X

Granted

Granted with Modification

Denied

24
25
26
27

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 8 to exclude evidence that Plaintiff’s work
environment was “hostile” is unopposed and therefore GRANTED.
X

Granted

Granted with Modification

Denied

28

2
CV11-03691 YGR

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 9 to exclude evidence of Plaintiff’s damages

1
2

from loss of earnings is DENIED.
Granted

3

Granted with Modification

X

Denied

4
5

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 89 through 96, and 113.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:
8

November 12, 2013
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
CV11-03691 YGR