Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 19STCV39355, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV39355, Date: 2023-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39355 Hearing Date: January 10, 2024 Dept: 47

Jan Williams v. County of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 19STCV39355

Final Status Conference: January 10, 2024

TENTATIVE RULINGS ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1, seeking to exclude evidence of “any alleged disciplinary actions, confirmation of conferences, affidavits from client, Plaintiff’s performance evaluations prior to 2015,” and to bar Plaintiff’s former supervisors, Amia Whitaker and Andrea Duncan, from testifying.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED.

While the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s motion is not clear about its basis for seeking exclusion of evidence, it is plain that Plaintiff asks the Court to exclude substantial evidence about Plaintiff’s employment history, including the alleged misconduct and prior discipline on which Defendant relies to demonstrate its legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for terminating Plaintiff’s employment. As the Court noted in its ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or adjudication, Defendant’s asserted reasons for terminating Plaintiff are grounded on the very evidence sought to be excluded:

“To justify the adverse actions taken against Plaintiff, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s supervisors received multiple complaints from her clients that she engaged in flagrant misconduct in her assignments from December 31, 2014 to August 3, 2016, including extorting and threatening caregivers (SSUMF Nos. 50-56), demanding to purchase the belongings of caregivers for small fractions of their worth (Nos. 57-58, 60), yelling at clients, lecturing them about religion and treating them with disrespect (Nos. 27-28, 33-34, 37-40), and failing to make or coming late to scheduled appointments with caregivers (Nos. 59-60). There is evidence that Plaintiff was subjected to several disciplinary actions regarding her professionalism and compliance with DCFS policy. (No. 64.) According to Defendant, Plaintiff was ultimately discharged because her disciplinary history and the evidence collected showed a pattern of unprofessional behavior and egregious misuse of her position. (No. 66.)” (Ruling on Matter Taken Under Submission, filed May 15, 2023, p. 5.)

This evidence is at the core of Defendant’s defense of this case and, thus, is centrally relevant to the litigation of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim. As a result, the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s motion to exclude this highly relevant evidence.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 1, seeking exclusion of all evidence, argument, etc., regarding Plaintiff’s prior settlement or other prior settlements or verdicts against Defendant.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED.

As the Court explained in ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication, evidence of Plaintiff’s settlement is admissible to prove protected conduct as one of the elements of her retaliation claim. In its ruling on that claim, the Court recognized the probative value of this evidence:

“Plaintiff has offered evidence of protected conduct including her [May] 2016 DFEH/EEOC complaint filed after the disclosure of the “Walking Wounded” memo accusing Defendant of disability discrimination and naming Plaintiff’s supervisors, Amia Whitaker and ARA Andrea Duncan. (Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶¶ 234-236.) According to Plaintiff, this complaint was settled in October 2016 and a settlement agreement signed in early 2017. (Id., ¶ 236; Defts. Exh. D). This settlement also constitutes protected conduct. In addition, Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct when she submitted her June 21, 2016 doctor’s note in which her physician indicated that Plaintiff’s stress condition required that she be removed from the supervision of LSW Amia Whitaker and ARA Andrea Duncan. (Plaintiff’s Decl., ¶¶ 119, 126-128; Plaintiff’s Exh. 2.)”

Because this evidence goes to a key element of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, it is centrally relevant to Plaintiff’s case and cannot be excluded under Evidence Code sections 350, 352 or 1101.

As to settlements or verdicts with respect to other cases or claims against Defendant, Plaintiff has not offered any basis for admitting such evidence. Nor has Defendant identified any specific evidence it seeks to exclude. For these reasons, the Court cannot rule on the matter based on the papers submitted and, thus, denies the motion without prejudice to raising objections to specific evidence that may be offered at trial.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 2, seeking exclusion of all evidence, argument, etc., regarding the “Walking Wounded Memo”

TENTATIVE RULING: The Court needs more information to rule on this motion. Plainly, the memo would not be admitted for the truth of the matters stated in it, so Defendant’s hearsay objection is overruled, although the Court would provide an explicit admonition to the jury of its limited purpose. While apparently not attached to Plaintiff’s EEOC/DFEH complaint, the memo is explicitly described in the administrative complaint, which is admissible as evidence of Plaintiff’s protected conduct. Further, the Court needs to consider the extent to which the contents of the memo should be admitted as something that would have provoked Defendant to retaliate against Plaintiff. The Court needs to hear argument before it can rule on Defendant’s objection under Evidence Code § 352.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 3, seeking exclusion of all evidence, argument, etc., regarding any alleged wrongful conduct by the County prior to January 21, 2017.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED IN PART, as described below.

The alleged misconduct included in Plaintiff’s May 2016 EEOC/DFEH complaint may not be admitted to prove any adverse actions taken against Plaintiff nor any damages for which she may be entitled to compensation in this action. The parties’ settlement agreement precludes any administrative complaints or lawsuits based on the allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s May 2016 EEOC/DFEH complaint. Defendant’s motion sweeps too far in seeking to bar evidence of alleged misconduct after the filing of the May 2016 complaint but before the January 21, 2017, as the settlement agreement does not appear to encompass any such actions. Further, the Court leaves open the possibility that certain pre-complaint evidence may be relevant to Plaintiff’s pending retaliation cause of action and will hear argument about this issue at the Final Status Conference.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 4, seeking exclusion of all evidence that is violative of Welfare and Institutions Code section 827.

TENTATIVE RULING: DENIED. Defendant does not identify any specific testimony or other evidence that will be presented by Plaintiff that would violate WIC § 827, so the Court cannot assess whether there is any evidence to be excluded. Indeed, because § 827 involves the confidentiality of a DSS case file, it is unclear how the objection applies to Plaintiff’s efforts to call lay witnesses to testify to their personal knowledge of their dealings with Plaintiff. To guard against any violation of the protections under § 827, however, the Court will require Plaintiff to make an offer of proof about the testimony to be offered by any family member or caregiver who will be called to testify at trial. In that context, the Court will determine if the testimony is relevant, whether its disclosure by the witness would violate the statute, and whether the probative value of any proffered testimony is outweighed by the considerations under Evidence Code § 352.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 5, seeking exclusion of all evidence related to any settlement discussions or settlement figures discussed by the parties to this action.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED.

Defendant’s Motion in Limine No. 6, seeking exclusion of all evidence related to the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication.

TENTATIVE RULING: GRANTED.