Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET. AL, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, 

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01696-YGR 

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8 RE:

OCTOBER 26, 2018 PRETRIAL 

CONFERENCE 

Having considered the filings to date and the arguments and other submissions presented at 

the Pretrial Conference held on October 26, 2018, and for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS 

as follows: 

1. Juror Questionnaire & Jury Selection: Jury selection shall commence on Friday, 

November 2, 2018. Counsel must arrive in court to proceed promptly at 8:30 a.m. Jury 

selection will begin at 9:00 a.m. The Court will provide each party with two copies of each 

completed juror questionnaire. The Court will empanel nine (9) jurors. 

2. Exhibits & Exhibit Lists: The Court has received the parties’ exhibit lists. (Dkt. Nos. 611, 

612.) The parties are instructed to submit electronic versions of all exhibits by no later than 

Thursday, November 1, 2018, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 3. (See Dkt. No. 591.) The 

parties are instructed to bring physical copies of exhibits they intend to offer at trial. Given the 

sheer enormity of the exhibit lists, the parties shall not bring a copy of ALL exhibits to the 

courtroom. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the parties are warned that time is limited, and 

delay due to the failure to have exhibits readily accessible may occur given a failure to plan 

properly. The trial clock does not pause for delays of any kind. 

3. Aggregate Amount of Punitive Damages: The Phase I jury, who will determine liability 

and the availability of punitive damages, will also determine the aggregate amount of punitive 

damages to be awarded. The parties shall follow the process set out in Pretrial Order No. 3, 

paragraph 27. In determining the aggregate amount of punitive damages, the jury may 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 622 Filed 10/29/18 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

consider defendant’s financial condition. In addition, because punitive damages must be 

proportionate to compensatory damages, the Court RESERVES for after Phase II the issue of 

whether any punitive damages award needs to be either allocated or reduced.1 

With respect to plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the other purposes for which financial 

information is probative, the Court RESERVES to consider the proffer on a case-by-case basis. 

The Court has reviewed Exhibit Number 1147-A and finds it not admissible. Evidence of 

global finances, while arguably admissible for punitive damages purpose, is more prejudicial 

than probative of defendant’s labor costs and resources in the United States market. 

4. Evidence of Individualized Termination Decisions: The Court previously issued an order 

deeming defendant’s termination files inadmissible. (See Dkt. No. 605.) That order, which 

pertained to those files only, did not conclude as a general matter that any and all evidence of 

defendant’s nondiscriminatory intent is inadmissible. In the interest of fairness, the Court 

notes that because plaintiffs are permitted to enter into evidence anecdotal information, 

defendant will be allowed to do the same for purposes of rebutting plaintiffs’ prima facie case. 

5. Affirmative Defense of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (“BFOQ”): Pretrial Order 

No. 3 addresses only the availability of the BFOQ affirmative defense based on the Court’s 

finding that the defense was properly preserved. The Court reiterates here its position 

regarding anecdotal evidence. 

6. Exhibit Nos. 261 and 272: Defendant shall submit for in camera review Exhibits 261 and 

272 regarding the issue of privilege. Defendant is warned that if the issue is not resolved in a 

timely manner, witnesses may be recalled to testify. 

7. Plaintiffs’ Augmented Exhibit List: The Court has already ruled on the issues defendant 

raises regarding plaintiffs’ “augmented” exhibit list and will not address them further. 

8. Plaintiffs’ Augmented Witness List: The Court will not limit plaintiffs’ witness list to 

exclude individuals who were disclosed only in the context of plaintiffs’ deposition 

 1

 Neither party objected to this process at the Pretrial Conference. Nor did they offer any 

competing alternative to deal with the hybrid situation of a Teamsters phased approach to trial. 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 622 Filed 10/29/18 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

designations. Defendant had fair warning of this anticipated evidence. Its objection at this 

point reflects nothing more than inappropriate gamesmanship. 

9. Hiring-Related Witnesses at Trial: The Court will not limit plaintiffs’ witness list based on 

defendant’s perception of the nature of witnesses’ testimony. The Court will resolve any 

objections to particular witnesses at trial. 

10. Accuracy of Plaintiffs’ Summaries: The Court will not exclude plaintiffs’ summaries 

wholesale. To the extent that defendant raises issues with plaintiffs’ calculations as to the 

underlying information contained therein, counsel may raise those issues during crossexamination.2

 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 602 and 606. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 29, 2018 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 2

 Plaintiffs’ administrative motion for leave to file a reply to defendant’s further response 

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 

will address the documents on a case-by-case basis at trial, to the extent necessary. 

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. 

606) is GRANTED. 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 622 Filed 10/29/18 Page 3 of 3