Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA AGUIRRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05564-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 215

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Teresa Aguirre’s motion for a corrective jury 

instruction and sanctions, based on statements made by Defendants’ counsel, Deputy Attorney 

General William McMahon. See Dkt. No. 215. The Court DENIES the motion.

1

I. BACKGROUND

This case involved a litany of discovery disputes, including over the proper scope of 

discovery into Aguirre’s medical history and the diagnoses and treatment she had received from 

one of her medical providers, a nurse practitioner named Loretta Ancellotti. See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 

61 (discovery letter brief), 65 (minute entry reflecting agreement to revise scope of subpoena to 

Ancellotti). Ancellotti did not testify at trial. In Defendants’ closing argument, McMahon 

contended (despite the absence of any evidence in the trial record) that records had been

“withheld” from defense counsel:

There was a suggestion that you were misled about [Aguirre’s] prior 

diagnosis of depression. And I hope you noticed the parsing of words 

and the careful, careful talking in circles around it. Let’s be honest 

now. Remember, [Aguirre’s expert witness] Dr. Smith – Dr. 

Rorschach was up there yesterday. You remember him acting 

 

1 The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is 

deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 250 Filed 08/02/19 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 California

confused? Well, wait a minute. Oh, yeah, I pointed out he only 

received the records from Ancellotti; right? This was the person who 

did the diagnosis. Ancellotti’s records were withheld from him, all 

the records prior to the start of her FMLA leave. That would include 

the February records with the depression diagnosis. Nobody denied 

that that took place. There was just all this talk about how, wait a 

minute, Gail Dyne, four years earlier – that’s false. That is not the 

only diagnosis. Withholding the records from your own expert. Well, 

they withheld them from us as well.

Trial Tr. vol. 5 at 1035:11–25. Counsel for Aguirre objected. Id. at 1036:1. The Court sustained 

the objection and instructed the jury to disregard McMahon’s comment. Id. at 1036:2–4. But 

McMahon continued to press the issue:

I would suggest to you that Dr. Smith, who did not receive all of 

Ancellotti’s records, was in no position to talk about any sort of 

diagnosis or when it happened, because he had an incomplete picture. 

They would like you to have an incomplete picture as well.

Id. at 1036:5–9. Counsel for Aguirre did not object. However, counsel brought up the records in 

his rebuttal:

The Ancellotti records. Let’s deal with that for a second. Look, if 

there were Ancellotti records that supported what defendants are 

claiming, you can bet they would have put them in front of you. If 

they wanted to claim that’s what they said, they were obligated to put 

it in front of you.

Id. at 1043:14–18. McMahon objected and added the comment that “[t]his not only goes beyond 

the scope, but those records were withheld from us.” Id. at 1043:19–20. The Court sustained the 

objection but warned McMahon that his speaking objection was inappropriate. Id. at 1043:21–24.

The following day, Aguirre filed her motion for a corrective instruction and sanctions. See 

Dkt. No. 215. The Court denied the request for a corrective instruction and allowed Defendants to 

respond to the motion for sanctions. See Trial Tr. vol. 6 at 1068:13–25. Defendant responded. 

See Dkt. No. 221.2 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts have “inherent power . . . to levy sanctions in response to abusive litigation 

practices.” Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 765 (1980). Courts may impose sanctions 

 

2 Despite the Court’s instruction that the motion would be submitted after Defendants’ response, 

Aguirre filed a reply. See Dkt. No. 222. 

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 250 Filed 08/02/19 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 California

for “bad faith, which includes a broad range of willful improper conduct.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 

F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001).

III. DISCUSSION

As the Court ruled at trial, McMahon’s comments about Plaintiff’s counsel supposedly

“withholding” documents from the defense were improper. Those facts were not in evidence and 

should not have been referenced before the jury during closing argument. See Draper v. Rosario, 

836 F.3d 1072, 1084 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that “attorneys may not rely on evidence outside the 

record during closing argument”). The Court should not have to tell an experienced trial lawyer 

acting on behalf of the State of California that referencing discovery disputes not in the record in a 

closing argument is inappropriate. But the Court does not find, based on the entire record, that 

these statements made during closing argument reflect bad faith or willfulness.

Further, the Court’s contemporaneous rulings and instructions to the jury were sufficient to 

cure any prejudice that may have resulted from McMahon’s comments. See Weeks v. Angelone, 

528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000) (“A jury is presumed to follow its instructions.”). No further 

instructions were necessary. And, based on the totality of the evidence presented at trial, the Court 

concludes that these comments had no effect on the jury’s verdict. See Settlegoode v. Portland 

Pub. Sch., 371 F.3d 503, 516–17 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A new trial should only be granted where 

the flavor of misconduct sufficiently permeates an entire proceeding to provide conviction that the 

jury was influenced by passion and prejudice in reaching its verdict.”) (internal quotations and 

alterations omitted).

 No sanctions are warranted for McMahon’s remarks.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the motion for a corrective jury

instruction and sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/2/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 250 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 3