From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Derosia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 27, 2012
CASE NO. CV F 11-1426 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. CV F 11-1426 LJO JLT

11-27-2012

ELIZABETH SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. MARK DEROSIA, et al., Defendant.


ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN

LIMINE

(Doc. 30.)


December 3, 2012 Hearing Vacated

This Court issues the following rulings on defendant Mark DeRosia and City of Delano's (collectively "defendants'") motions in limine ("MIL"):

Defendants' MIL No. 1 to Exclude Evidence of Other Litigation and Administrative Complaints: Defendants' MIL No. 1 is over broad and categorical and gives no credence to the holding or reasoning in Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1995). To make a F.R.Evid. 403 analysis, this Court would require specifics which defendants have failed to provide. As such, this Court DENIES defendants' MIL No. 1.

Defendants' MIL No. 2 to Exclude Evidence from Non-Supervisory Employees/Non-Decision Makers: This Court GRANTS defendants' MIL No. 2 in that work performance does not appear to be at issue.

Defendants' MIL No. 3 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff's History of Cancer and Miscarriages: Medical leave itself and "general" reasons for medical leave are admissible, and to that extent, this Court DENIES defendants' MIL No. 3. Details beyond references to "cancer," "complications," and "miscarriage" are precluded under F.R.Evid. 403, and to that extent, this Court GRANTS defendants' MIL No. 3.

Defendants' MIL No. 4 to Exclude Expert Testimony as to Why Plaintiff Was Incapable to Work: This Court DENIES defendants MIL No. 4 in that plaintiff has complied with F.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) and (2) and the issue of continued work absence and supporting reasons address causation and damages.

Defendants' MIL No. 5 to Exclude Claims and Allegations: This Court DENIES defendants' MIL No. 5 in that it is tantamount to an untimely summary judgment motion, and denial is supported by the law and reasoning of plaintiff's opposition papers.

Defendants' MIL No. 6 to Exclude Alleged Adverse Employment Actions: This Court DENIES defendants' MIL No. 6 in that the alleged events, if proven, address intent as it relates to discrimination.

This Court VACATES the December 3, 2012 motions in limine hearing. The parties are encouraged to resume a settlement conference with U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston if the parties believe doing so is productive.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Sutton v. Derosia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 27, 2012
CASE NO. CV F 11-1426 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Sutton v. Derosia

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. MARK DEROSIA, et al., Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 27, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. CV F 11-1426 LJO JLT (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012)