Judge Joseph Lipner, Case Number: BC624838, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: BC624838, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC624838 Hearing Date: December 6, 2023 Dept: 72

Pinter-Brown v. University of California at Los Angeles et al.

(BC624838)

Tentative Rulings on Motions In Limine

A. PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE:

1. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 1: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to Attorney Carney R. Shegerian being a patient of Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 2: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to dismissed claims and parties, specifically: that Dr. Sven De Vos was a defendant dismissed from this case; that the following claims were dismissed or adjudicated: (1) harassment based on gender; (2) retaliation for complaints of discrimination and/or harassment based on gender; (3) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5; (4) defamation; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (6) Violations of the Equal Pay Act.

3. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3: Granted in part as follows: Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to the exact location of Plaintiff’s homes and the number of homes she owns. The Court will allow evidence of the general location of Plaintiff’s home near UCLA and UCI and the purchase of her home near UCI.

4. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 4: Denied as overly broad. The evidence sought to be excluded is not specifically enough defined for the Court to rule on at the in limine stage. The Court will, however, exclude on a question-by-question basis any evidence that is directed solely or primarily to proving plaintiff’s wealth as a means of prejudicing the jury. The Court admonishes Defendant not to seek to elicit such testimony.

5. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 5: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to Plaintiff’s son being a lawyer and former employee of Shegerian & Associates, Inc.

6. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 6: Denied.

7. Plaintiff’s MIL No 7: Denied.

8. Plaintiff’s MIL No 8: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to the alleged sexual preferences of Plaintiff.

9. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 9: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to the results of the prior trial or appeal in this matter.

10. Plaintiff’s MIL No. 10: Denied. However, the Court will consider relevance objections on a question-by-question basis.

B. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE:

1. Defendant’s MIL No. 1: Granted as follows: Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to (1) the October 2013 Report authored by retired California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno (the “Moreno Report”); (2) a 2014 list of complaints against the University of California system as a hole submitted to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH complaints”); and (3) evidence of alleged discrimination by the University of California not on the basis of gender.

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to submit evidence of “me too” gender discrimination that does not involve Dr. Sven de Vos, Dr. John Glaspy, Dr. Dennis Slamon, Dr. Jonathan Hiatt and Dr. Jan Tillisch, Plaintiff shall bring such evidence to the Court’s attention outside the presence of the jury before any question or reference in the jury’s presence so the matter may be argued by the parties and decided by the Court. Under the Court’s ruling, at least a portion of the facts relating to the neurology department appear to be admissible “me too” evidence given the involvement of Dr. Jonathan Hiatt in those circumstances. The Court may sustain objections to admission of the facts relating to the neurology department under Evidence Code section 352 or otherwise to the extent the focus strays too far from the involvement of Dr. Hiatt.

The Court provides the following reasoning in connection with its ruling on this motion.

Plaintiff agrees that the DFEH complaints are not admissible and the motion in limine is unopposed in that regard.

Plaintiff agrees that the Moreno Report is inadmissible as “me too” evidence but asserts that portions are admissible for other reasons, including to prove constructive discharge. The Court is not convinced by Plaintiff’s argument. Even assuming for the sake of argument that certain statements in the report relate in some way to Plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim, the Court concludes that admission of such evidence is substantially more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352. The Court’s conclusion is informed in part by the history of the use of the Moreno Report in the prior trial and the fact that the Moreno Report focused on racial discrimination rather than gender discrimination.

The involvement of Dr. Hiatt in the facts relating to the neurology department require the Court to deny Defendant’s request to exclude this evidence from the retrial. The Court admonishes Plaintiff not to stray too far afield from Dr. Hiatt’s participation in presenting this evidence.

Any “me too” evidence not involving those people Plaintiff has accused of being bad actors here should be brought to the Court’s attention outside the presence of the jury to determine whether it is admissible. The Court agrees that, in light of the history of this case, Defendant’s proposed order requiring such matters to be heard outside the presence of the jury makes sense.

2. Defendant’s MIL No. 2: The Court denies this motion to the extent that it seeks to exclude evidence of “harassment” as opposed to “discrimination.” The evidence sought to be excluded by Defendant is too ill-defined to be subject to a motion in limine. Moreover, the evidence that Defendant seeks to exclude is likely to overlap with Plaintiff’s discrimination case.

The Court will hear argument by the parties on the question of whether Plaintiff’s evidence relating to her treatment in connection with the audits of clinical trials relates solely to the claim of “retaliation” and should be excluded or whether it remains relevant to the pending claim of discrimination.

3. Defendant’s MIL No. 3: Denied.

4. Defendant’s MIL No. 4: Denied.

5. Defendant’s MIL No. 5: The Court grants the motion in part as follows. The Court excludes Ms. Simpson’s testimony broadly characterizing Dr. de Vos as “misogynistic,” “expects women to be submissive to men” or similarly general characterizations. Moreover, neither party shall bring up Dr. de Vos’s German background (an issue raised in the prior trial by Defendant, not Plaintiff.) The excluded testimony is improper character testimony, improper opinion testimony, and more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Code section 352.

Except as so specified, the Court denies the motion. As Defendant agrees, Ms. Simpson may testify to what she observed. To the extent that there are hearsay objections, the Court will hear them on a case-by-case basis. If Plaintiff intends to rely on Evidence Code section 1236, Plaintiff must be prepared to strictly comply with both Evidence Code section 1236 and Evidence Code section 791. Plaintiff also must be prepared to argue whether the exception applies to one witness’s testimony about another party’s prior consistent statement.

6. Defendant’s MIL No. 6: Granted on agreement of the parties. Plaintiff does not intend to call Jerry Kang. Accordingly, the Court rules that neither party shall call Jerry Kang as a witness.

7. Defendant’s Mil No. 7: Granted. The Court excludes Kathleen Salvaty from testifying at the retrial. Ms. Salvaty began working as Title IX coordinator for UCLA in April 2015, years after the events at issue in this lawsuit took place. The Court concludes that her testimony is not relevant to the issues in this case. To the extent it had some relevance, it is more prejudicial than probative, would confuse the issues, and would entail an undue consumption of time under Evidence Code section 352.

8. Defendant’s MIL No. 8: Denied. To the extent that Defendant seeks a limiting instruction, it should propose one to the Court after the relevant evidence comes in.

9. Defendant’s MIL No. 9: Denied.

10. Defendant’s MIL No. 10: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to the captive insurance Fiat Lux or any alleged reinsurance taken by Defendant to cover the claims brought by Plaintiff.

11. Defendant’s MIL No. 11: Denied.

12. Defendant’s MIL No. 12: Denied.

13. Defendant’s MIL No. 13: Granted on agreement of the parties. Neither party shall introduce evidence about or refer to the evidence of any discrimination against Plaintiff at UC Irvine occurring after she left UC Los Angeles.

14. Defendant’s MIL No. 14: Denied. Defendant identifies no discovery request in which it sought the identity of such witnesses. To the extent Defendant wants to do so, Defendant may take the depositions of these witnesses prior to trial.