Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Van v. Language Line, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

July 26, 2016

NATHALIE THUY VAN, Plaintiff,
v.
LANGUAGE LINE, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS RE: DKT. NO. 343, 362

          LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

         Defendant Language Line, LLC (“Defendant”) has filed objections to Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) trial exhibits, ECF No. 343, which Plaintiff has opposed, ECF No. 346. Defendant has also filed proposed redactions to Plaintiff’s trial exhibits, ECF No. 362, which Plaintiff opposes, ECF No. 367. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Defendant’s objections as follows:

EXHIBIT NO.

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

201

Sustained.

202

Overruled.

203

Overruled.

204

Sustained. The 1997 new hire documents do not “prove the starting date of her employment at Language Line, LLC, ” as Plaintiff claims. The 1997 new hire documents are from AT&T Language Line Services, not Language Line, LLC.

205

Overruled.

206

Overruled.

207

Overruled.

208

Overruled.

209

Overruled.

210 - Bates pages 000761-000764, 000767

Overruled.

The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are granted as to paragraph 6 of Bates 000762-000763. Otherwise, Defendant’s proposed redactions are denied.

211

Overruled.

212

Overruled.

217 - pages 2-5, 53-60

Defendants propose redacting information prior to August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability for any cause of action in the instant case, from Plaintiff’s summary chart. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s proposed redaction is granted.

Defendant’s objection to pay statements prior to August 21, 2010 is granted.

218 - pages 1-32, 33

Defendants propose redacting information prior to August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability for any cause of action in the instant case, on Plaintiff’s August 2010 monthly calendar. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s proposed redaction is granted.

Defendant’s objection to monthly calendars prior to August 21, 2010 is granted.

219 - pages 1-9

Overruled.

220 - Bates pages 001944-001945, 004902

Defendant did not object to Bates 004901. Overruled as to Bates 004902. Sustained as to Bates 001944-001945 which duplicate Bates 004901-4902. The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are denied.

221 - Bates pages 001824, 001942

Overruled. The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are denied.

Confidential 222

Overruled. However, the document shall be submitted under seal.

223 - 001273, 001275, 001279

Overruled.

The Court rules on the redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 as follows:

- Granted as to the term “regular hours” on Bates 001273.

- Granted as to “fraudulently” and “and falsified” on Bates 001279.

- Granted as to Plaintiff’s redactions on Bates 001273, 001275, 001279.

- Otherwise denied.

224

Defendant and Plaintiff are in agreement as to what should be redacted. The Court grants the parties’ redactions as set forth in ECF No. 362.

225

Overruled as to LLS003946 and LLS003947. Sustained as to LLS003952 because it is a duplicate of LLS003947.

The parties shall redact “fraudulently” and “Superior” from LLS 003947.

226

Sustained.

227

Sustained as to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. Otherwise overruled.

228

Sustained.

229

Sustained.

230

Sustained.

231

Sustained.

233

Sustained.

234 - Bates pages 003111 - 003121

Defendants propose redacting information prior to August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability for any cause of action in the instant case. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s proposed redactions are granted and thus moot Defendant’s objection.

235

Sustained.

236

Sustained.

237

Sustained.

238

Sustained.

239

Sustained.

240 - 6:19-25; 10:2-4

Sustained. The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are moot.

241

Sustained.

242

See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

243

See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

244

Overruled.

245

Overruled.

246

See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

247

See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

248

Overruled.

249

Sustained.

250

Overruled.

251

Sustained.

252

Overruled.

253

Overruled.

         IT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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