Greenlaw v. Acosta

Filing 173

FURTHER ORDER re 135 Defendant's Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 3/9/2025. (vkdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
ROSEMARY GREENLAW,

8

Plaintiff,

9

FURTHER ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 1 AND 2

v.

10

VINCENT N. MICONE,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-04932-VKD

Re: Dkt. No. 135

Defendant.

12
13
14

With respect to Ms. Greenlaw’s claim for recovery of the compensation she would have

15

earned had she not been terminated, the Court has already concluded that she may rely on this

16

theory. In support of this theory, she may rely on the government pay scales that identify the pay

17

she would have received had she remained employed by OSHA at the relevant grade/step.1 See

18

Dkt. No. 152 at 9-10; Dkt. No. 164.

19

However, Ms. Greenlaw failed to adequately disclose her other damages theories during

20

discovery, including the amount and basis of her pension contribution claim, and the amount and

21

basis for her delayed retirement claim, without justification. Indeed, Ms. Greenlaw still has not

22

disclosed the legal authority on which she relies to support these theories, and she did not disclose

23

her calculations regarding the amounts she believes she is entitled to under these theories until

24

after the February 19, 2025 pretrial conference. Ms. Greenlaw’s failure to timely disclose this

25

information about her additional damages theories is prejudicial to the Secretary, as permitting her

26

to proceed on these theories would place the Secretary in the position of having to address and

27
28

1

At the March 6, 2025 further pretrial conference, the Secretary indicated that the relevant grade
and step is grade 7/step 10.

1

rebut these theories on the eve of trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).

2

Accordingly, Ms. Greenlaw’s remedies at trial are limited to the recovery of the

3

compensation she would have earned had she not been terminated but had remained employed at

4

OSHA.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 9, 2025

7
8
Virginia K. DeMarchi
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2