Garcia v. Praxair, Inc.

PATRICK GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. PRAXAIR, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01493-SAB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 4, 2021

ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE

(ECF Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55)

I.BACKGROUND

Patrick Garcia ("Plaintiff") was employed by Praxair, Inc. ("Praxair" or "Defendant") as a standard plant technician at Defendant's Chowchilla plant. On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff was repairing a value and was injured as a result of a fall. He was hospitalized for approximately three days with a traumatic brain injury that required further treatment. Plaintiff was placed on disability and was terminated on November 7, 2017.

Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) on October 29, 2018, against Defendant alleging disability discrimination for termination of employment, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a); failure to accommodate, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(m); failure to engage in the interactive process, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(n); wrongful termination in violation of public policy; retaliation in violation of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 6310, 1102.5; failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 510(a); and failure to pay wages earned in violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 201. A trial is to be set once jury trials are able to resume in this district. Currently before the Court are the parties' motions in limine filed on November 25, 2020. (ECF No. 52, 53.) Oppositions to the motions in limine were filed on December 9, 2020. (ECF Nos. 54, 55.)

Oral argument on the motions was held on December 16, 2020. Counsel Tom Duckworth and Dena Narbaitz appeared for Plaintiff. Counsel Tanja Darrow and Vanessa Cohn appeared for Defendant. Having considered the moving and opposition papers, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, arguments presented at the December 16, 2020 hearing, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order.

II.LEGAL STANDARD

"A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence in a particular area." United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). A party may use a motion in limine to exclude inadmissible or prejudicial evidence before it is actually introduced at trial. See Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). "[A] motion in limine is an important tool available to the trial judge to ensure the expeditious and evenhanded management of the trial proceedings." Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Services, 115 F.3d 436,440 (7th Cir. 1997). A motion in limine allows the parties to resolve evidentiary disputes before trial and avoids potentially prejudicial evidence being presented in front of the jury, thereby relieving the trial judge from the formidable task of neutralizing the taint of prejudicial evidence. Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003).

Judges have broad discretion in ruling on a motion in limine. Jenkins v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 316 F.3d 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2002) ); see also United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) (motion in limine rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Evidence should not be excluded on a motion in limine unless it is inadmissible on all potential grounds. McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 995 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1167 (D. Nev. 2014); United States v. Hitesman, No. 14-CR-00010-LHK-1, 2016 WL 3523854, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2016). Unless this high standard is met, ruling on the motion in limine should be denied until trial so that the evidence can be considered in its proper context. McConnell, 995 F.Supp.2d at 1167; Hitesman, 2016 WL 3523854, at *2; see also Jonasson, 115 F.3d at 440 (Some evidentiary issues are notaccurately and efficiently evaluated by the trial judge in a motion in limine and it is necessary to defer ruling until during trial).

III.DISCUSSION

Plaintiff brings motions in limine to 1) exclude evidence of the affirmative defense of undue hardship; 2) exclude evidence from medical providers on Plaintiff's ability to return to work; 3) exclude evidence of whether he was totally temporarily disabled; 4) exclude evidence of Defendant's rebuttal expert; 5) exclude Mr. Sarkisian as a rebuttal expert; and 6) exclude evidence of collateral source payments. Defendant brings motions in limine to 1) exclude expert testimony from Mr. Lloyd; 2) exclude evidence relating to a Cal-OSHA investigation and subsequent OSHA findings and subsequent remediation; 3) exclude testimony from Mr. Gonzales; 4) exclude testimony from Ms. Goins-Gonzales; 5) exclude declarations of Mr. Gonzales, Ms. Goins-Gonzales, Dr. Bianchi; and Dr. Chauhan; 6) preclude Plaintiff from admitting his medical records and work restriction notices to establish his medical condition and work restrictions; 7) exclude evidence of workers' compensation third party administrator's denial of treatment or delay in approving treatment; 8) exclude drafts of letters to Plaintiff; 9) and exclude evidence of potential job openings with Defendant.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that generally relevant evidence is admissible at trial. Fed. R. Evid. 402. "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Fed. R. Evid. 401. Relevant evidence can be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence." Fed. R. Evid. 403.

A. Plaintiff's Motions In Limine

1. Evidence of Affirmative Defense of Undue Hardship

a. Plaintiff's Position

Plaintiff's first motion in limine seeks to have Defendant refrain making any mention,directly or indirectly, of any evidence concerning Defendant's undue hardship defense that was not produced in response to discovery requests. Plaintiff contends that Defendant was required to disclose all documents that it had in its possession custody and control and did not produce any documents going to the affirmative defense of undue hardship in its initial disclosures. Further, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not produce any documents in response to discovery requests concerning the undue hardship defense. Plaintiff argues that under Rule 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Defendant should be precluded from introducing documents that were not produced in discovery or in the Rule 26 disclosures. Plaintiff contends that admission of such documents would be inadmissible hearsay and unduly prejudicial under Rules 403 and 802 of the Federal Code of Evidence.

b. Defendant's Position

Defendant counters that Plaintiff is incorrect and evidence relevant to the undue hardship defense was produced in the initial and supplemental disclosures, discovery responses, supplemental responses, and corresponding document production, as well as the deposition testimony of the lay, expert, and rebuttal expert witnesses that were deposed in this action. Defendant asserts that evidence need not be labeled as "undue burden defense" and that there is no merit to Plaintiff's assertion that no evidence has been produced and requests that the motion be denied.

c. The Court's Ruling

The California Civil Jury Instructions provide that to succeed on the affirmative defense of undue hardship defense, a defendant must prove that an accommodation would create an undue hardship because it would be significantly difficult or expensive, in light of the following factors:

a. The nature and cost of the accommodation[s];

b. [Name of defendant]'s ability to pay for the accommodation[s];

c. The type of operations conducted at the facility;

d. The impact on the operations of the facility;

e. The number of [name of defendant]'s employees and the relationship of the employees' duties to one another;

f. The number, type, and location of [name of defendant]'s facilities; and

g. The administrative and financial relationship of the facilities to one another.

CACI 2545; see also Cal. Gov't Code § 12926(u). Further, the notes on directions for use statethat "[t]he issue of whether undue hardship is a true affirmative defense or whether the defendant only has the burden of coming forward with the evidence of hardship as a way of negating the element of plaintiff's case concerning the reasonableness of an accommodation appears to be unclear." Id. citing Atkins v. City of Los Angeles, 8 Cal.App.5th 696, 733 (2017). "Whether a particular accommodation will impose an undue hardship for a particular employer is determined on a case by case basis" and "is a multi-faceted, fact-intensive inquiry." Atkins, 8 Cal.App.5th at 733 (internal citations omitted).

Here, Plaintiff has not identified any specific evidence that is sought to be excluded but generally seeks to exclude all mention of evidence that has not been produced relevant to the undue hardship defense because Defendant did not produce documents in response to request for production no. 50 for "[a]ll DOCUMENTS REFERRING OR RELATING to YOUR twenty-second affirmative defense in YOUR answer stating that "any accommodation suggested or requested by Plaintiff (if any there was) ... amounted to an undue hardship to Defendant." (Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to FRCP 34, ECF No. 52-1 at 7.)

Defendant argues that it produced over 1600 pages of documentation that spoke to the defense of undue hardship which included documents relating to Plaintiff's medical and work status reports, and included documentation on Plaintiff's fluctuating work status and limitations. Defendant also argues that the supplemental discovery responses included additional production that were highly probative of Plaintiff's medical leave and its indeterminate nature. Defendant also cites deposition testimony that would support the undue hardship defense, including that Plaintiff was the only...