Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd

Filing 605

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 6 RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 7 & 8 by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; granting 525 Motion in Limine; granting 527 Motion in Limine. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

BRIAN BUCHANAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9
10

CASE NO. 15-cv-01696-YGR
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 6 RE: PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 7 & 8

vs.
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 525, 527

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court, having considered plaintiffs’ motions in limine nos. 7 and 8 (Dkt. Nos. 525,

13

527) and the parties’ arguments raised at the pretrial conference held on October 12, 2018

14

regarding the same, ORDERS as follows:

15

Plaintiffs’ No. 7: To Exclude TCS’s Termination Forms:

16

This motion is GRANTED. The termination forms contain hearsay and do not fall within

17

any of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay. These forms are prepared by the human

18

resources department in preparation of a request to terminate an employee. They are reviewed

19

and, in some cases, revised after the legal department reviews them. They are not shown to the

20

employee nor are they used for any ongoing business purpose. “[I]t is manifest that in this case

21

th[e] [forms] are not for the systematic conduct of [TCS] as a [company that contracts with clients

22

to provide consulting, technology, and outsourcing services].” Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109,

23

114 (1943); cf. id. (“Unlike payrolls, accounts receivable, accounts payable, bills of lading and the

24

like these [accident] reports are calculated for use essentially in the court, not in business. Their

25

primarily utility is in litigating, not in railroading.”).

26

TCS argues that it does not seek to introduce the forms for the truth of the statements

27

contained therein but rather to show the lack of discriminatory intent. The cases TCS cites in

28

support of this argument do not persuade. First, while the cases indicate that evidence of lack of

1

discriminatory intent is admissible, they do not consider these kinds of forms or use of the same in

2

a class action context. See Haddad v. Lockheed Cal. Corp., 720 F.2d 1454 (1983) (employee

3

brought individual suit alleging employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and

4

age); Rosebrock v. Beiter, CV 10-01878 SJO (SSx), 2011 WL 13214270 (C.D. Cal. May 26,

5

2011) (veteran brought individual suit alleging viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First

6

Amendment). Additionally, and in any event, the probative value of admitting the termination

7

forms to show an alleged lack of discriminatory intent is outweighed by the volumes of

8

inadmissible hearsay contained therein. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

9

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court will allow a witness to discuss the existence of
the forms and the lack of any statement therein of intent to discriminate. In addition, the forms

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

can be used as a demonstrative, i.e., a witness can show the jury how many pages exist if all the

12

forms were to be printed out, but the forms themselves will not be admitted. Further, the Court

13

will allow the introduction of a template or redacted termination form which shows only the

14

questions included on the form, but no other content and/or appended materials.1

15

Plaintiffs’ No. 8: To Exclude TCS’s Termination Form Summaries:

16

In light of the Court’s ruling regarding plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 7, this motion is also

17

GRANTED.

18

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 525 and 527.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 23, 2018
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent that a specific form is needed for purposes of an admission or recorded
recollection regarding a specific issue, the Court will address those instances on a case-by-case
basis.
2