Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03341/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03341-40/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SHIRLEY “RAE” ELLIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-3341 EMC

FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

ORDER

(Docket Nos. 868-72, 875)

 Plaintiff Elaine Sasaki has asserted the following claims against Defendant Costco

Wholesale Corporation: (1) disparate treatment on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII and (2)

retaliation in violation of Title VII. 

I. TRIAL DATE & LENGTH OF TRIAL

As the parties have agreed, the trial shall be a bench trial.

Trial, including opening statements, shall begin on July 24, 2015, and shall end on August 7,

2015. Trial days shall last from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Thursdays are dark. Closing arguments shall

be held on August 17, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.

Trial time shall be split evenly between the parties. Each side shall have a total of eighteen

(18) hours to present its case. This includes opening statements, closing arguments, direct

examination, cross-examination, deposition designations, and so forth. 

II. WITNESSES

A. Ms. Sasaki

Ms. Sasaki has identified the following witnesses that she may call to testify at trial (either

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

live or by deposition) other than solely for impeachment or rebuttal. See Docket No. 882-1 (Supp.

Joint PTC St., Appendix B, Tab 1).

(1) Jeff Abadir. 

(2) Guy Berry. 

(3) Chris Bolves. 

(4) John Booth. 

(5) Dennis Carlisle. 

(6) Don Christensen. 

(7) Wendy Davis. 

(8) Richard DiCerchio. 

(9) Frank Farcone. 

(10) Caton Frates. 

(11) Mike Hayes.

(12) Dennis Hoover. 

(13) Craig Jelinek. 

(14) Richard Martell. 

(15) John Matthews. 

(16) John McKay. 

(17) Amy Oppenheimer. 

(18) Elaine Sasaki. 

(19) Jim Sinegal. 

(20) Jeff Thompson. 

(21) Ron Vachris. 

(22) Judy Vadney. 

(23) Dennis Zook. 

(24) Any individual listed on Costco’s witness list.

B. Costco

Costco has identified the following witnesses that it may call to testify at trial other than

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

solely for impeachment or rebuttal. See Docket No. 882-2 (Supp. Joint PTC St., Appendix B, Tab

2).

(1) Elaine Sasaki.

(2) Jeff Abadir.

(3) John Booth.

(4) Denny Carlisle.

(5) Don Christensen.

(6) Silvia Comunale.

(7) Wendy Davis.

(8) Richard Drogin.

(9) Kathy Fuson.

(10) John Gaherty.

(11) Dennis Hoover.

(12) Tammy Loveland.

(13) John McKay.

(14) Gregory Mitchell. 

(15) Mario Omoss.

(16) Ali Saad. 

(17) Jeff Thompson.

(18) Judy Vadney. 

(19) Ron Vachris.

(20) Guy Berry

(21) Bryan Blank

(22) Chris Bolves

(23) Roger Campbell.

(24) Mike Casebier.

(25) Julie Cruz.

(26) Jerry Dempsy.

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

(27) Anthony Fontana.

(28) Frank Farcone.

(29) Caton Frates.

(30) Darby Greek.

(31) Bruce Greenwood.

(32) Jim Harris.

(33) Dave Harruff.

(34) Mike Hayes.

(35) Bob Hicok.

(36) Bill Koza.

(37) Rob Leuck.

(38) Jeff Long.

(39) Mark Maushund.

(40) Bruce Marteney.

(41) Dan McMurray.

(42) Shawn Parks.

(43) Joe Portera.

(44) Steve Powers.

(45) Paul Pulver.

(46) Aldyn Royes.

(47) Yoram Rubanenko.

(48) Drew Sakuma.

(49) Adam Self.

(50) Doug Schutt.

(51) Kim Brown Silva.

(52) Louie Silveira.

(53) Tom Walker.

(54) Richard Webb.

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

(55) Rich Wilcox.

(56) Brenda Weber.

(57) Dennis Zook.

C. Stipulation re Expert Witnesses

The parties stipulated that, “in lieu of calling Drs. Saad, Martell, and Mitchell to testify at

trial, they will instead submit to the Court their Expert Reports.” Docket No. 861 (Stip. at 1).

The parties further stipulated that “the Court may consider the previously submitted expert

reports of Reskin and Landy (Docket Nos. 135, 151, 152, 463-3) to the extent that the Court finds

that consideration necessary to evaluate any Expert Report’s reliance on either the Reskin or Landy

reports.” Docket No. 861 (Stip. at 1).

III. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A. Costco’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Docket No. 868)

In its first motion in limine, Costco moves to exclude evidence of how those men who were

promoted to the GM position performed after they were promoted. Costco argues that “a

comparator’s job performance after his promotion is categorically irrelevant to whether Costco

honestly believed he was qualified for promotion when the promotion occurred.” Mot. at 1

(emphasis in original). 

The Court is not unsympathetic to Costco’s argument that post-promotion evidence is

irrelevant. As a general matter, it is what Costco knew (or perhaps even should have known) about

an employee’s performance at or before the time of promotion that is relevant. See, e.g., Cullen v.

Olin Corp., 195 F.3d 317, 324 (7th Cir. 1999) (stating that the comparator’s “unsatisfactory

performance months after the reduction in force had no bearing on management’s state of mind at

the time the decision to terminate [the plaintiff] was made, and thus that evidence is totally irrelevant

to a determination of whether [the plaintiff] was terminated in violation of the ADEA”) (emphasis in

original).

That being said, Ms. Sasaki has pointed to several ways in which post-promotion evidence

could be relevant in the instant case – e.g., because it was consistent with the poor performance of

the comparator before the promotion, which was known or should have been known to decision

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 For example, if post-promotion evidence indicates that a GM did not have a particular skill that

Costco claims is critical for a GM to have, and Costco did not do anything in response after that fact

is discovered, Ms. Sasaki could argue that that skill is not really a bona fide qualification for the GM

position.

6

makers, and/or because it shed light on what qualifications of the GM position were actually

considered by decision makers.1 See, e.g., Gordon v. Bay Area Quality Mgt. Dist., No. C08-3630

BZ, 2010 U.S. Dist. 48285, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010) (excluding “evidence which is relevant

only to Wiley’s post-hiring performance” but not excluding “evidence of post-hiring performance

that bears directly on issues about Mr. Wiley’s background and experience that were known to the

District at the time it made the hiring decision”); Suggs v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 122 F.R.D. 430,

431 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (noting that “post-promotion evaluations may clarify what was expected o a

particular employee when he or she was promoted[;] for example, an evaluation such as ‘Smith has

not demonstrated the foreign policy expertise his resume has led us to expect’ shows that Smith’s

foreign policy experience was relied upon in deciding to promote him in the first place”). Thus, the

Court holds that, if the post-promotion evidence goes to either of these areas, then there is a basis for

relevance, although the probative value is likely small. But if not, then the evidence is not relevant

at all.

Even if the evidence is relevant, however, the Court does not find at this juncture that it is

thereby admissible. There may still be Rule 403 concerns, not only in terms of undue delay and

wasting time but also unfair prejudice because of the possibility that Costco will need to engage in

extensive rebuttal evidence to respond to the post-promotion evidence. The Court will not engage in

extensive mini-trials on points that have little probative value. The Court thus DEFERS ruling on

the motion in limine. The charts that the parties will provide, see Part VIII, infra, will guide the

Court’s decision as to whether any given post-promotion evidence shall be admitted.

B. Costco’s Motion in Limine No. 2 (Docket No. 869)

In its second motion in limine, Costco moves to exclude the expert testimony of Ms.

Oppenheimer. Ms. Oppenheimer is expected to opine that

1) Ms. Vadney’s position, vis-a-vis Mr. Hoover, prevented her from

having actual and perceived impartiality; 2) her investigation was not

reasonably thorough in that it failed to investigate the discriminatory

promotion allegations, to interview significant witnesses, and to weigh

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

significant witness information; 3) she failed to maintain the

confidentiality of the complainant and respondent; and 4) she did not

apply a consistent standard in weighing the evidence, and did not

explain the basis for her credibility findings. Finally, Ms.

Oppenheimer will opine that Costco failed to fully ensure that plaintiff

was not subjected to retaliation.

Opp’n at 3. 

Costco contends that Ms. Oppenheimer’s expert testimony should be excluded because “(i)

the subject matter [of her opinion] is irrelevant, (ii) her research is seriously deficient, (iii) her

opinion does not reflect demonstrable principles, and (iv) her opinion teems with unsupported

speculation.” Mot. at 1. The last three arguments are Daubert arguments which are not of

paramount concern to the Court – at least at this point in the proceedings – as this is a bench trial. 

See In re Salem, 465 F.3d 767, 777 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that, “[w]here the gatekeeper and the

factfinder are one and the same – that is, the judge – the need to make such decisions prior to

hearing the testimony is lessened”; “the court can hear the evidence and make its reliability

determination during, rather than in advance of, trial”); FTC v. Neovi, Inc., No. 06-CV-1952 JLS

(JMA), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41491, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011) (indicating that, in a bench

trial, a court “‘can evaluate the experts’ testimony against the Rule 702 standard as they testify’”);

see also Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 852 (6th Cir. 2004) (noting that “[t]he

‘gatekeeper’ doctrine was designed to protect juries and is largely irrelevant in the context of a

bench trial”); Angioscore, Inc. v. Trieme Med., Inc., No. 12-cv-03393-YGR, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

45531, at *64 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2015) (noting that “‘the Daubert gatekeeping obligation is less

pressing in connection with a bench trial’” because the gatekeeper and the trier of fact are the same).

What is more troubling to the Court is whether Ms. Oppenheimer’s testimony will be

relevant to the case and/or whether it will be helpful to the Court as the finder of fact. See Fed. R.

Evid. 402, 702. If Ms. Sasaki had asserted a claim for hostile work environment, then the adequacy

of Ms. Vadney’s investigation would clearly be relevant under Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524

U.S. 775 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). But Ms. Sasaki has

not raised such a claim, and she has failed to explain how a poor investigation on the part of Ms.

Vadney (and thereby Costco) is probative of either the disparate treatment or retaliation claim. For

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 In her opposition, Ms. Sasaki explains that BOLD was an initiative that Costco launched in 2001 

to identify barriers to the advancement of its female and minority

employees. Costco conducted focus groups, first in 2001 and again in

2005, to solicit the perceptions of the company’s senior managers, who

used Costco’s promotion system on a daily basis and observed its effects

first-hand. Numerous participants expressed the view that the promotion

system lacked clear and consistent standards, and disadvantaged women

and minorities.

Opp’n at 1.

8

example, Ms. Sasaki argues that, because the investigation was not done properly, her identity was

exposed and she was thereby blackballed; also, Mr. Hoover was left in a position to affect her ability

to be promoted. But these latter facts – the underlying facts – will come in at trial regardless of what

Ms. Oppenheimer testifies. In other words, the facts may exist irrespective of why they occurred. 

Ms. Oppenheimer’s contemplated testimony thus will not add anything to the claim at issue. And

even if Ms. Oppenheimer’s testimony did have some probative value, it would be minimal at best,

and such value would be substantially outweighed by the wasting of time devoted to Ms.

Oppenheimer’s testimony and cross-examination. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Accordingly, Costco’s

motion in limine to exclude the testimony of Ms. Oppenheimer is GRANTED.

C. Costco’s Motion in Limine No. 3 (Docket No. 870)

In its third motion in limine, Costco moves to exclude evidence related to Costco’s diversity

focus groups, BOLD, or other diversity initiatives.1

 Because there is no longer a disparate impact

claim in this case, the Court agrees with Costco that Rules 402 and 403 are obstacles for Ms. Sasaki. 

Even if the evidence suggests that “Costco’s promotion system is susceptible to stereotyping and

bias,” Opp’n at 3, the question is whether Mr. Hoover, Mr. Booth, and/or Mr. Abadir in particular –

the alleged decision makers as identified by Ms. Sasaki – had a discriminatory or retaliatory intent. 

Thus, the diversity initiative evidence is relevant only if it has a nexus to the state of mind of one or

more of these individuals specifically. 

At the pretrial conference, Ms. Sasaki indicated that she could make such a showing because

Mr. Hoover and/or Mr. Booth at least were active participants in the diversity initiatives. The Court

therefore DEFERS ruling on the motion. In order for any diversity initiative evidence to be

admissible, Ms. Sasaki will need to make the necessary predicate showing – i.e., that there is a nexus

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

to one of the decision makers at issue. Ms. Sasaki will also need to provide evidence to establish

that the evidence is not hearsay or falls under one of the hearsay exception rules. See, e.g., Fed. R.

Evid. 801(d)(2) (providing that the statement of a party-opponent is not hearsay; this rule covers a

statement “made by the party in [a] representative capacity,” “made by a person whom the party

authorized to make a statement on the subject,” and “made by the party’s agent or employee on a

matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed”).

D. Costco’s Motion in Limine No. 4 (Docket No. 871)

In its fourth motion in limine, Costco moves to exclude evidence that two other women made

claims of unwelcome sexual conduct against Mr. Hoover. The motion is DENIED.

The foundation objection lacks merit. As Ms. Sasaki notes, she may question Mr. Hoover

himself about the other incidents. Mr. Hoover may deny that the incidents took place or that he

acted improperly but that is a different matter from lack of foundation.

Likewise, Costco’s contention that the evidence is improper character evidence is not

meritorious. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not permit evidence of a “bad act” to prove a

person’s character but such “evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving

motive [or] intent.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Here, the evidence at issue is relevant to motive/intent. 

As the Court explained in its summary judgment order, “Mr. Hoover’s views and attitudes toward

women are clearly relevant as he is one of the key decision makers identified by Ms. Sasaki has

having a discriminatory animus.” Docket No. 854 (Order at 19). “Because hostility against women

underlies decisions to discharge or to refuse to hire women because of their gender, evidence of

sexual harassment often will be relevant to claims of gender-based employment discrimination.” 

EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 898 (9th Cir. 1994). While Costco disputes that Mr.

Hoover has been or is a decision maker with respect to Ms. Sasaki’s promotions or lack thereof, that

is a factual matter to be decided at trial.

Finally, Costco makes a Rule 403 argument but the fact that this is a bench trial addresses the

bulk of its concerns.

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

10

E. Costco’s Motion in Limine No. 5 (Docket No. 872)

In its final motion in limine, Costco moves to exclude what it terms “relationship evidence”

– i.e., evidence related to relationships that comparators had with other persons within Costco,

which purportedly led to favoritism of the comparators. The Court DEFERS ruling on the motion

and shall address the evidence on a case-by-case basis. However, as guidance to the parties, the

Court notes that it will likely admit evidence of personal relationships only where gender-related

preferences or biases at issue (e.g., men mentoring other men) and not, for instance, preferences

based on familial or romantic relationships which have no obvious systemic adverse effect along

gender lines.

F. Ms. Sasaki’s Motion in Limine No. 1 (Docket No. 875)

In her sole motion in limine, Ms. Sasaki asks that, for her claim of disparate treatment, the

Court bar Costco from asserting a “same decision” affirmative defense at trial because she “is not

pursuing a ‘mixed motive’ theory of liability” and is instead pursuing “only a ‘single-motive’ theory

of discrimination.” Mot. at 1-2. At the pretrial conference, the parties reached agreement. Costco

agreed it will not assert a same decision affirmative defense at trial because Ms. Sasaki confirmed

that (1) she was pursuing only a single-motive theory of discrimination and (2) Costco would not be

prevented from introducing any of its evidence at trial on the issue of whether it had gender neutral

reasons for its actions.

IV. EXHIBITS

The parties have submitted bellwether objections that they would like a ruling on in advance

of trial. See Docket No. 882-4 (Supp. Jt. PTC St., Appendix C, Tab 2) (bellwether objections). At

the conference, the Court provided oral rulings and/or guidance, which are memorialized below.

1. Exhibit No. 751. The Court defers ruling but notes that the exhibit will likely be admitted so

long as Ms. Vadney lays the necessary foundation for the document.

2. Exhibit No. 208. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 3.

3. Exhibit No. 224. Ms. Sasaki has withdrawn this exhibit and the objection is therefore moot.

4. Exhibit No. 229. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 1.

5. Exhibit No. 236. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 1.

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

11

6. Exhibit No. 253. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 3.

7. Exhibit No. 221. The Court defers ruling on the exhibit but notes that, at the conference, Ms.

Sasaki made at least a colorable argument of relevance (i.e., that Mr. Jelinek self-evaluated

low, just as Ms. Sasaki did).

8. Exhibit No. 256. The Court defers ruling on the exhibit but notes that it is hard to see the

document’s relevance given that Ms. Sasaki was no longer working in the Texas region at

the time.

9. Exhibit No. 260. Costco’s objections, predicated on the contention that the performance

review of Ms. Sasaki is too remote in time, are overruled.

10. Exhibit No. 281. The Court understands Costco’s objection to be predicated on the fact that

the Vadney investigation notes refer to complaints about Mr. Hoover made by two other

women. The objection is overruled. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 4.

11. Exhibit No. 291. The Court defers ruling on this exhibit; it will need context from the trial to

determine relevance. The document appears to be non-hearsay.

12. Exhibit No. 292. Costco’s objections are overruled. Ms. Sasaki has articulated a basis for

relevance – i.e., that the letter sheds light on who are the relevant decision makers with

respect to promotions. As above, the document appears to be non-hearsay.

13. Exhibit No. 401. Costco’s objections, predicated on the contention that the performance

review of Mr. Garcia is too remote in time, are overruled.

14. Exhibit No. 440. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 1.

15. Exhibit No. 590. Costco’s objection is sustained. Ms. Oppenheimer shall be not be

permitted to testify. See Def.’s Mot. in Limine No. 2.

16. Exhibit No. 598. Costco’s objection is sustained. The document is not a summary document

for Rule 1006 purposes. Rather, the document is more in the nature of a demonstrative.

V. USE OF DISCOVERY RESPONSES

Both parties have designated discovery responses that they intend to use at trial. See Docket

No. 876-5 to -6 (Joint PTC, Appendix D). Only Ms. Sasaki has made objections. 

Ms. Sasaki has objected to the designations related to Ms. Sasaki’s responses to requests for

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

12

admission. In the requests, Costco asked Ms. Sasaki to admit that she had no evidence that certain

individuals were “less qualified” than her for the GM position they received. Ms. Sasaki objected to

the requests for admission but then denied the requests. 

The Court agrees with Ms. Sasaki that the responses are a waste of time given that Ms.

Sasaki denied (i.e., did not admit) the requests for admission. Accordingly, Ms. Sasaki’s objection

is sustained and the responses to the requests for admission shall not be admitted.

VI. DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

The Court addresses first Costco’s “general objection” to the deposition testimony. Costco’s

blanket request that the Court wait until after the presentation of live evidence before allowing any

deposition testimony is denied. This ruling, however, does not preclude Costco from making a Rule

403 objection (based on wasting time or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence) on a case-bycase basis if it in good faith believes one is warranted. 

To the extent there are specific objections to any deposition testimony, as reflected in the

parties’ chart, see Docket No. 883 (chart on amended deposition designations), the Court shall

provide rulings, where possible, in advance of trial.

VII. DEMONSTRATIVES

If a party decides to use a demonstrative, that party should give the opposing party at least

one day’s notice prior to use of the demonstrative to ensure that any objection may be raised with

the Court in advance of use.

VIII. CHARTS

As discussed at the conference, by July 10, 2015, Ms. Sasaki shall file a chart identifying

which promotions (totaling seven to ten) she intends to focus on at trial. The chart shall also reflect,

for each promotion, who the relevant decision makers are and what evidence Ms. Sasaki will use at

trial – e.g., identifying witness testimony as well as specific documentary evidence.

///

///

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

13

By July 17, 2015, Costco shall file a chart that identifies what rebuttal evidence it intends to

submit (as above, either witness testimony or specific documentary evidence) each time Ms. Sasaki

has relied on post-promotion evidence in support of a claim for failure to promote.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 868-72 and 875.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03341-EMC Document 886 Filed 07/06/15 Page 13 of 13