Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Services, LTD

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01696

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8 RE: OCTOBER 26, 2018 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 10/29/2018.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET. AL, Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR 6 Plaintiffs, PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8 RE: 7 vs. OCTOBER 26, 2018 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 8 TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, 9 Defendant. 10 Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions presented at 11 the Pretrial Conference held on October 26, 2018, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS 12 as follows: Northern District of California United States District Court 13 1. Juror Questionnaire & Jury Selection: Jury selection shall commence on Friday, 14 November 2, 2018. Counsel must arrive in court to proceed promptly at 8:30 a.m. Jury 15 selection will begin at 9:00 a.m. The Court will provide each party with two copies of each 16 completed juror questionnaire. The Court will empanel nine (9) jurors. 17 2. Exhibits & Exhibit Lists: The Court has received the parties' exhibit lists. (Dkt. Nos. 611, 18 612.) The parties are instructed to submit electronic versions of all exhibits by no later than 19 Thursday, November 1, 2018, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 3. (See Dkt. No. 591.) The 20 parties are instructed to bring physical copies of exhibits they intend to offer at trial. Given the 21 sheer enormity of the exhibit lists, the parties shall not bring a copy of ALL exhibits to the 22 courtroom. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the parties are warned that time is limited, and 23 delay due to the failure to have exhibits readily accessible may occur given a failure to plan 24 properly. The trial clock does not pause for delays of any kind. 25 3. Aggregate Amount of Punitive Damages: The Phase I jury, who will determine liability 26 and the availability of punitive damages, will also determine the aggregate amount of punitive 27 damages to be awarded. The parties shall follow the process set out in Pretrial Order No. 3, 28 paragraph 27. In determining the aggregate amount of punitive damages, the jury may 1 consider defendant's financial condition. In addition, because punitive damages must be 2 proportionate to compensatory damages, the Court RESERVES for after Phase II the issue of 3 whether any punitive damages award needs to be either allocated or reduced.1 4 With respect to plaintiffs' arguments regarding the other purposes for which financial 5 information is probative, the Court RESERVES to consider the proffer on a case-by-case basis. 6 The Court has reviewed Exhibit Number 1147-A and finds it not admissible. Evidence of 7 global finances, while arguably admissible for punitive damages purpose, is more prejudicial 8 than probative of defendant's labor costs and resources in the United States market. 9 4. Evidence of Individualized Termination Decisions: The Court previously issued an order 10 deeming defendant's termination files inadmissible. (See Dkt. No. 605.) That order, which 11 pertained to those files only, did not conclude as a general matter that any and all evidence of 12 defendant's nondiscriminatory intent is inadmissible. In the interest of fairness, the Court Northern District of California United States District Court 13 notes that because plaintiffs are permitted to enter into evidence anecdotal information, 14 defendant will be allowed to do the same for purposes of rebutting plaintiffs' prima facie case. 15 5. Affirmative Defense of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification ("BFOQ"): Pretrial Order 16 No. 3 addresses only the availability of the BFOQ affirmative defense based on the Court's 17 finding that the defense was properly preserved. The Court reiterates here its position 18 regarding anecdotal evidence. 19 6. Exhibit Nos. 261 and 272: Defendant shall submit for in camera review Exhibits 261 and 20 272 regarding the issue of privilege. Defendant is warned that if the issue is not resolved in a 21 timely manner, witnesses may be recalled to testify. 22 7. Plaintiffs' Augmented Exhibit List: The Court has already ruled on the issues defendant 23 raises regarding plaintiffs' "augmented" exhibit list and will not address them further. 24 8. Plaintiffs' Augmented Witness List: The Court will not limit plaintiffs' witness list to 25 exclude individuals who were disclosed only in the context of plaintiffs' deposition 26 27 1 Neither party objected to this process at the Pretrial Conference. Nor did they offer any 28 competing alternative to deal with the hybrid situation of a Teamsters phased approach to trial. 2 1 designations. Defendant had fair warning of this anticipated evidence. Its objection at this 2 point reflects nothing more than inappropriate gamesmanship. 3 9. Hiring-Related Witnesses at Trial: The Court will not limit plaintiffs' witness list based on 4 defendant's perception of the nature of witnesses' testimony. The Court will resolve any 5 objections to particular witnesses at trial. 6 10. Accuracy of Plaintiffs' Summaries: The Court will not exclude plaintiffs' summaries 7 wholesale. To the extent that defendant raises issues with plaintiffs' calculations as to the 8 underlying information contained therein, counsel may raise those issues during cross- 9 examination.2 10 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 602 and 606. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: October 29, 2018 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 Plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file a reply to defendant's further response 25 to plaintiffs' motion in limine no. 4 (Dkt. No. 602) is DENIED AS MOOT. As stated on the record, while the parties should assume that any late-produced documents will not be admitted, the Court 26 will address the documents on a case-by-case basis at trial, to the extent necessary. 27 In addition, in the interest of preventing the release of personal, identifiable information, plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal thirty-one exclusion request forms (Dkt. No. 28 606) is GRANTED. 3