Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd

Filing 622

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8 RE: OCTOBER 26, 2018 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/29/2018. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2018)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET. AL,

6

Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR

Plaintiffs,

7
8

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD,
Defendant.

9
10

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8 RE:
OCTOBER 26, 2018 PRETRIAL
CONFERENCE

vs.

Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions presented at

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the Pretrial Conference held on October 26, 2018, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS

12

as follows:

13

1. Juror Questionnaire & Jury Selection: Jury selection shall commence on Friday,

14

November 2, 2018. Counsel must arrive in court to proceed promptly at 8:30 a.m. Jury

15

selection will begin at 9:00 a.m. The Court will provide each party with two copies of each

16

completed juror questionnaire. The Court will empanel nine (9) jurors.

17

2. Exhibits & Exhibit Lists: The Court has received the parties’ exhibit lists. (Dkt. Nos. 611,

18

612.) The parties are instructed to submit electronic versions of all exhibits by no later than

19

Thursday, November 1, 2018, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 3. (See Dkt. No. 591.) The

20

parties are instructed to bring physical copies of exhibits they intend to offer at trial. Given the

21

sheer enormity of the exhibit lists, the parties shall not bring a copy of ALL exhibits to the

22

courtroom. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the parties are warned that time is limited, and

23

delay due to the failure to have exhibits readily accessible may occur given a failure to plan

24

properly. The trial clock does not pause for delays of any kind.

25

3. Aggregate Amount of Punitive Damages: The Phase I jury, who will determine liability

26

and the availability of punitive damages, will also determine the aggregate amount of punitive

27

damages to be awarded. The parties shall follow the process set out in Pretrial Order No. 3,

28

paragraph 27. In determining the aggregate amount of punitive damages, the jury may

1

consider defendant’s financial condition. In addition, because punitive damages must be

2

proportionate to compensatory damages, the Court RESERVES for after Phase II the issue of

3

whether any punitive damages award needs to be either allocated or reduced.1

4

With respect to plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the other purposes for which financial

5

information is probative, the Court RESERVES to consider the proffer on a case-by-case basis.

6

The Court has reviewed Exhibit Number 1147-A and finds it not admissible. Evidence of

7

global finances, while arguably admissible for punitive damages purpose, is more prejudicial

8

than probative of defendant’s labor costs and resources in the United States market.

9

4. Evidence of Individualized Termination Decisions: The Court previously issued an order
deeming defendant’s termination files inadmissible. (See Dkt. No. 605.) That order, which

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

pertained to those files only, did not conclude as a general matter that any and all evidence of

12

defendant’s nondiscriminatory intent is inadmissible. In the interest of fairness, the Court

13

notes that because plaintiffs are permitted to enter into evidence anecdotal information,

14

defendant will be allowed to do the same for purposes of rebutting plaintiffs’ prima facie case.

15

5. Affirmative Defense of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (“BFOQ”): Pretrial Order

16

No. 3 addresses only the availability of the BFOQ affirmative defense based on the Court’s

17

finding that the defense was properly preserved. The Court reiterates here its position

18

regarding anecdotal evidence.

19

6. Exhibit Nos. 261 and 272: Defendant shall submit for in camera review Exhibits 261 and

20

272 regarding the issue of privilege. Defendant is warned that if the issue is not resolved in a

21

timely manner, witnesses may be recalled to testify.

22

7. Plaintiffs’ Augmented Exhibit List: The Court has already ruled on the issues defendant

23

raises regarding plaintiffs’ “augmented” exhibit list and will not address them further.

24

8. Plaintiffs’ Augmented Witness List: The Court will not limit plaintiffs’ witness list to

25

exclude individuals who were disclosed only in the context of plaintiffs’ deposition

26
27
28

1

Neither party objected to this process at the Pretrial Conference. Nor did they offer any
competing alternative to deal with the hybrid situation of a Teamsters phased approach to trial.
2

1

designations. Defendant had fair warning of this anticipated evidence. Its objection at this

2

point reflects nothing more than inappropriate gamesmanship.

3

9. Hiring-Related Witnesses at Trial: The Court will not limit plaintiffs’ witness list based on

4

defendant’s perception of the nature of witnesses’ testimony. The Court will resolve any

5

objections to particular witnesses at trial.

6

10. Accuracy of Plaintiffs’ Summaries: The Court will not exclude plaintiffs’ summaries

7

wholesale. To the extent that defendant raises issues with plaintiffs’ calculations as to the

8

underlying information contained therein, counsel may raise those issues during cross-

9

examination.2
This Order terminates Docket Numbers 602 and 606.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: October 29, 2018
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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

2

Plaintiffs’ administrative motion for leave to file a reply to defendant’s further response
to plaintiffs’ motion in limine no. 4 (Dkt. No. 602) is DENIED AS MOOT. As stated on the record,
while the parties should assume that any late-produced documents will not be admitted, the Court
will address the documents on a case-by-case basis at trial, to the extent necessary.
In addition, in the interest of preventing the release of personal, identifiable information,
plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal thirty-one exclusion request forms (Dkt. No.
606) is GRANTED.
3