Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alma Burrell v. County of Santa Clara

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


May 5, 2013

ALMA BURRELL,
VICKYE HAYTER,
MARGARET HEADD,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, DAN PEDDYCORD, RAE WEDEL,
MARTY FENSTERSHEIB AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE,
DEFENDANTS.

RULING ON OBJECTIONS TO OPENING STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS FOR TRIAL-DAY

A pretrial conference was held on May 2, 2013. Trial is set to begin on Monday, May 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., and is scheduled to last five days. In order to limit the issues that need to be addressed prior to the beginning of trial, the Court issues the following rulings:

OBJECTIONS TO DEMONSTRATIVES TO BE USED IN PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS FOR TRIAL-DAY 1:

After reviewing the parties' briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 403, the Court rules on the parties' objections as follows: A.Defendants' Objections to Burrell's May 6, 2013 Opening Statement

Demonstratives

Demonstrative Court's Ruling on Objections Principles of Equal Employment Opportunity Sustained. The principles set forth in this demonstrative, which derive from statutes and case law, constitute legal argument, which is improper for opening statement.

Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions Nos. 26, 28, and 37 Sustained. The parties stipulated to preliminary jury instructions, which did not include any substantive jury instructions, and thus did not include Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions Nos. 26, 28, and 37. Defendants have filed detailed objections to Plaintiff's Proposed Jury Instructions Nos. 26, 28, and 37. The Court will rule on these objections during the jury instruction conference at the close of evidence. Thus, Plaintiffs cannot present their disputed jury instructions to the jury. Moreover, presentation of these disputed substantive jury instructions during opening statement is improper legal argument. Report prepared by Margo Rich Ogus, PhD Sustained. Defendant has withdrawn this expert and does not intend to call this witness at trial. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant's objection to Plaintiff's Exhibit 338, which is the expert report of this witness. ECF No. 126 and 127. The Court will not allow as demonstratives during opening statement any exhibits for which admissibility is disputed. Deposition Excerpts of Dan Peddycord and Rae Wedel Sustained. Both parties have indicated that Dan Peddycord and Rae Wedel will testify live during the trial. Neither party designated the deposition transcripts of Dan Peddycord or Rae Wedel. Consequently, these transcript excerpts will not be admitted into evidence. If Dan Peddycord and Rae Wedel testify during trial contrary to these excerpts, Plaintiff may use these excerpts to impeach the witnesses. However, even if used for impeachment, these excerpts would not be admitted into evidence.

B.Defendants' Objections to Exhibits and Testimony of Plaintiff Alma Burrell

Exhibit Number Court's Ruling on Objections Exhibit 106 Overruled. Ms. Burrell received this document from her office manager. Ms. Burrell then maintained this document in her records after receiving it. The Court finds this foundation to be acceptable for introducing it into evidence as a record made and kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, pursuant to FRE 803(6). Exhibit 166 Sustained. Ms. Burrell cannot lay a proper foundation for this document. Exhibit 167 Sustained. Ms. Burrell cannot lay a proper foundation for this document. Exhibit 260 Overruled. The Court denied Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 24 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff Vickye Hayter's 2007 Application for Reclassification and the Denial of Same, ECF No. 76, as to Vickye Hayter's December 2007 application for reclassification and the denial thereof. ECF No. 111. This document relates to the denial of the December 2007 application. Exhibit 254 Sustained. Ms. Burrell cannot lay a proper foundation for this document. Exhibit 262 Overruled. The Court denied Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 24 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff Vickye Hayter's 2007 Application for Reclassification and the Denial of Same, ECF No. 76, as to Vickye Hayter's December 2007 application for reclassification and the denial thereof. ECF No. 111. This document relates to the denial of the December 2007 application. Exhibit 275 Overruled. The Court denied Defendants' Motion in Limine No. 24 to Exclude Evidence of Plaintiff Vickye Hayter's 2007 Application for Reclassification and the Denial of Same, ECF No. 76, as to Vickye Hayter's December 2007 application for reclassification and the denial

20130505

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.