UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
April 30, 2013
ALMA BURRELL, VICKYE HAYTER, MARGARET HEADD,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DAN PEDDYCORD, RAE WEDEL, MARTY FENSTERSHEIB AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS AND TRIAL
Presently before the Court are Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 32, Defendants' Motion to Sever Plaintiff Headd ("Motion to Sever"), ECF No. 31, and Defendants' 22 Motion to Exclude Amy Oppenheimer's Expert Reports and Testimony ("Motion to Exclude"), 23 ECF No. 48. A hearing was held on April 4, 2013. Having considered the submissions of the 24 parties, the relevant law, and the arguments of the parties, the Court intends to rule as follows: 25
The Court will DENY Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Third Cause of Judgment as to all remaining causes of action. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Sever Plaintiff 2 Headd is DENIED as moot. Even considering Amy Oppenheimer's Expert Reports and 3 Testimony, the Court finds that summary judgment in Defendants' favor as set forth above is 4 appropriate. Accordingly, the Court need not reach Defendants' Motion to Exclude. The Court 5 will issue an order shortly. 6
For the trial in this case, which will begin on Monday, May 6, 2013, the Court will empanel 7 eight jurors. Each side will have three peremptory challenges. 8
In light of the Court's intended ruling, by Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at noon, the parties 9 shall file their revised estimate of the jury trial length, and shall identify which motions in limine 10 are mooted or amended.
By Thursday, May, 2, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., the parties shall file revised verdict forms and jury instructions. 13
By Thursday, May 2, 2013, at noon, the parties shall engage in settlement discussions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.