Opinion
21-cv-01945-SI
09-14-2021
BARRY D. ROSS, Plaintiff, v. RANDSTAD PROFESSIONALS, US, LLC DBA RANDSTAD SOURCERIGHT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE RE: DKT. NO. 40
SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge.
On August 16, 2021, defendants Walmart, Inc. and Jason Corbett filed the instant motion to strike paragraphs 45, 121, 126, 127, and Exhibits G and H from plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 40. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b) the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution on the papers and therefore VACATES the September 24, 2021 hearing.
First, defendants seek to strike paragraph 45 and Exhibit G arguing both contain information from private settlement negotiations. Indeed, Exhibit G is marked as “For Settlement Purposes Only Confidential and Privileged Pursuant to Evidence Code §1152 et seq.” Dkt. No. 30 at 48. Further, paragraph 45 refers to Exhibit G as defendants' “settlement offer.” Dkt. No. 30 at ¶45. Plaintiff argues the settlement letter is relevant and referencing it is crucial to identify “glaring shifts in [defendants'] explanations for terminating Ross' employment.” Dkt. No. 45. The Court disagrees.
For ease of reference, page number citations refer to the ECF branded page number in the upper right hand corner of the page.
Exhibit G is plainly labeled “For Settlement Purposes Only” and indeed makes an offer to settle the matter. Dkt. No. 30 at 48-49. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 408 makes clear “conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim” is not admissible “to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.” Exhibit G and paragraph 45 fall squarely within Rule 408's purview -defendants' motion to strike both is therefore GRANTED.
Second, defendants seek to strike paragraphs 121, 126, 127, and Exhibit H arguing all contain “confidential personnel data[] purportedly identifying 55 individuals and providing their ethnicities, employers (i.e. Walmart), job titles, and hire dates.” Dkt. No. 40 at 8. Plaintiff argues all this data was gathered using publicly available methods including public websites such as Linkedin. Dkt. No. 45 at 5. However, plaintiff offers no evidence - in the form of declaration or otherwise, corroborating this assertion. Defendants counter, that a person's ethnicity is not available on public websites like Linkedin and Google, is well taken. As such, defendants' motion to strike paragraphs 121, 126, 127, and Exhibit H is GRANTED. When and if evidence concerning such evidence is presented, appropriate protective orders can be crafted a necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED