Nathalie Thuy Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. et al

Filing 376

ORDER Re [343, 362] Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Trial Exhibits. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/26/16. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

13
14
15

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL
EXHIBITS

v.
LANGUAGE LINE, LLC,

16

Re: Dkt. No. 343, 362

Defendant.

17
18

Defendant Language Line, LLC (“Defendant”) has filed objections to Plaintiff Nathalie

19

Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) trial exhibits, ECF No. 343, which Plaintiff has opposed, ECF No. 346.

20

Defendant has also filed proposed redactions to Plaintiff’s trial exhibits, ECF No. 362, which

21

Plaintiff opposes, ECF No. 367. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in

22

the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court

23

rules on Defendant’s objections as follows:

24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBIT NO.
201
202
203
204

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
Sustained.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Sustained. The 1997 new hire documents do not
“prove the starting date of her employment at
1

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

1
2
3
4
5

205
206
207
208
209
210 – Bates pages 000761-000764,
000767

6
7
8
9

211
212
217 – pages 2-5, 53-60

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

218 – pages 1-32, 33

14
15
16
17
18

219 – pages 1-9
220 – Bates pages 001944-001945,
004902

19
20

221 – Bates pages 001824, 001942

21

Confidential 222

22

223 – 001273, 001275, 001279

23
24
25
26
27
28

Language Line, LLC,” as Plaintiff claims. The 1997
new hire documents are from AT&T Language Line
Services, not Language Line, LLC.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Overruled.
The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362
are granted as to paragraph 6 of Bates 000762-000763.
Otherwise, Defendant’s proposed redactions are
denied.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Defendants propose redacting information prior to
August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability
for any cause of action in the instant case, from
Plaintiff’s summary chart. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s
proposed redaction is granted.
Defendant’s objection to pay statements prior to
August 21, 2010 is granted.
Defendants propose redacting information prior to
August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability
for any cause of action in the instant case, on Plaintiff’s
August 2010 monthly calendar. ECF No. 362.
Defendant’s proposed redaction is granted.
Defendant’s objection to monthly calendars prior to
August 21, 2010 is granted.
Overruled.
Defendant did not object to Bates 004901. Overruled
as to Bates 004902. Sustained as to Bates 001944001945 which duplicate Bates 004901-4902. The
redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are
denied.
Overruled. The redactions proposed by Defendant in
ECF No. 362 are denied.
Overruled. However, the document shall be submitted
under seal.
Overruled.
The Court rules on the redactions proposed by
Defendant in ECF No. 362 as follows:
- Granted as to the term “regular hours” on Bates
001273.
- Granted as to “fraudulently” and “and falsified”
on Bates 001279.
- Granted as to Plaintiff’s redactions on Bates
001273, 001275, 001279.
- Otherwise denied.
2

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

1
2

224
225

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

226
227
228
229
230
231
233
234 – Bates pages 003111 - 003121

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

235
236
237
238
239
240 – 6:19-25; 10:2-4
241
242

16
243
17
18
19
20

244
245
246
247

23

248
249
250
251
252
253

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Defendant and Plaintiff are in agreement as to what
should be redacted. The Court grants the parties’
redactions as set forth in ECF No. 362.
Overruled as to LLS003946 and LLS003947.
Sustained as to LLS003952 because it is a duplicate of
LLS003947.
The parties shall redact “fraudulently” and “Superior”
from LLS 003947.
Sustained.
Sustained as to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10.
Otherwise overruled.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Defendants propose redacting information prior to
August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability
for any cause of action in the instant case. ECF No.
362. Defendant’s proposed redactions are granted and
thus moot Defendant’s objection.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained. The redactions proposed by Defendant in
ECF No. 362 are moot.
Sustained.
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and
Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and
Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
Overruled.
Overruled.
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and
Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and
Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.
Overruled.
Sustained.
Overruled.
Sustained.
Overruled.
Overruled.

Dated: July 26, 2016

21
22

26
27
28

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
3
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS