Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: BC698405, Date: 2023-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC698405    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: 76

Defendant’s motion in limine no. 1:  GRANTED

                With this motion, Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of events occurring earlier than one year before Plaintiff filed the DFEH complaint upon which this action is predicated.  The motion asserts that such evidence must be excluded as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, since it is outside the one-year statute of limitations and is therefore time-barred.

                Plaintiff opposes the motion, asserting that the evidence is admissible pursuant to the continuing violations doctrine, and it is relevant evidence of protected activity by Plaintiff.

                The Court finds that the admission of evidence outside the one-year limitations period creates a risk of undue prejudice towards defendant, as well as a risk of jury confusion, which substantially outweigh any probative value of the evidence.  Moreover, such evidence poses a significant risk that time will be wasted in presenting both the evidence proposed by Plaintiff and any countering evidence that Defendant may wish to present.  To the extent that pre-2017 conduct is relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, the verdict in Plaintiff’s prior case encompasses the time period of such conduct.  Since the jury will learn of Plaintiff’s favorable result in his prior case, and the nature of the claims that were asserted in that case, presentation of evidence that predates that verdict and may be encompassed within that verdict is redundant and cumulative, and poses a substantial risk of jury confusion.

Defendant’s motion in limine No. 7:  GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART

                This motion seeks to preclude Plaintiff from presenting proposed comparator evidence relating to misconduct of Plaintiff’s co-workers that was purportedly subject to lesser punitive measures than Plaintiff’s conduct.  Plaintiff contends that the evidence is relevant to show differential treatment of Plaintiff, and argues in the opposition brief that several examples of such treatment are admissible.  The issue with regard to this evidence is whether the conduct identified by Plaintiff is sufficiently similar to allow its admission as comparative evidence.  Plaintiff suggests that Defendant is seeking a 1-to-1 match between Plaintiff’s case and the comparative examples, which is an impossible standard that is not required under the law.  On the other hand, comparative evidence cannot be used if it is not sufficiently similar to Plaintiff’s circumstances.  The Court has considered the examples proposed by Plaintiff in his opposition brief, and finds that the following conduct presents sufficiently similar alleged misconduct by Plaintiff’s co-workers to constitute valid comparative evidence, provided that a proper foundation is laid for otherwise admissible evidence:

·         Evidence of Plaintiff’s co-worker using a state vehicle to conduct an affair, including personal shopping trips.

·         Evidence that one of Plaintiff’s co-workers used state equipment to run an eBay business.

The other examples proposed by Plaintiff are insufficiently similar in nature (in terms of the policies allegedly violated) or degree to Plaintiff’s alleged misconduct to constitute valid comparative evidence.  Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED with regard to all other proposed comparative evidence identified by Plaintiff in the opposition brief.