Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564-8/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 MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 178, 179

Pending before the Court are the parties’ supplemental motions in limine, filed on 

November 26. See Dkt. Nos. 178 (Plaintiff’s motion in limine), 179 (Defendants’ motions in 

limine). The parties each responded in opposition that same day. See Dkt. Nos. 180 (Defendants’ 

opposition), 181 (Plaintiff’s opposition). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES all of the 

supplemental motions in limine.

I. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiff asks the Court to “preclude Defendants from mischaracterizing Plaintiff’s leave” 

by requiring Defendants to refer to the leave “as the mornings off to care for her father in 

Lakeport” rather than as “half time work hours” or a similar phrase. See Dkt. No. 178 at 1–2. 

Plaintiff claims this “mischaracterization could confuse or mislead the jury.” See id. at 2.

The Court will not grant this vague and unmanageable request. First, as Defendants note, 

Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly referred to Plaintiff’s leave as “half-day” or “half-time” 

throughout this litigation. See Dkt. No. 180 at 2–3 (excerpts of depositions). Second, such a

request is entirely unenforceable. Plaintiff is of course entitled to present evidence on the terms of 

her leave as she understood it, but the Court will not police the short-hand phrases the Defendants 

use to describe their understanding of the terms. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is 

DENIED.

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 190 Filed 12/05/18 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 California

II. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Defendants filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s 

proposed witnesses Irma Rodriguez and Loretta Ancellotti as well as the mention of a potential 

hardship transfer to another job. See Dkt. No. 179 at 1, 3, 4.

A. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Irma Rodriguez

Defendants ask the Court to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff’s sister, Irma Rodriguez, 

who Plaintiff intends to call to discuss “Plaintiff’s emotional distress.” See Dkt. No. 179 at 1. 

Defendants claim that her testimony will be biased, cumulative, unfairly prejudicial, and constitute 

improper expert testimony by a lay witness. See id. Plaintiff responds that Ms. Rodriguez’s 

testimony will demonstrate “one of three different perspectives” on Plaintiff’s emotional distress 

and will be limited to her observations. See Dkt. No. 181 at 1.

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Ms. Rodriquez will testify beyond her personal 

observations and opinions or that her testimony will be cumulative or substantially more 

prejudicial than it is probative. See Fed. R. Evid. 701, 403. Defendants are, of course, entitled to 

cross-examine Ms. Rodriguez about any potential bias. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the 

motion to exclude Ms. Rodriguez.

B. Motion to Exclude Testimony of Loretta Ancellotti

Defendants seek to exclude the testimony of Loretta Ancellotti, one of Plaintiff’s health 

care providers, because Plaintiff withdrew her as a trial witness on January 8 and “reversed 

course” recently, which has caused Defendants to “formulate[] a trial strategy that did not include” 

Ms. Ancellotti. Dkt. No. 179 at 3. Plaintiff counters that Ms. Ancellotti “will only be called as a 

rebuttal witness . . . only if Defendants challenge the terms of Plaintiff’s leave as it is specified in 

Plaintiff’s Certification of Health Care Provider.” Dkt. No. 181 at 1.

Neither party cites any rules or authority in making their arguments. That said, Defendants 

deposed Ms. Ancellotti and Plaintiff added her to the witness list on October 17, so it is difficult to 

see how Defendants would be prejudiced by allowing her to testify when trial commences in 

January. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to exclude Ms. Ancellotti, subject to 

reconsideration depending on the manner in which Plaintiff attempts to introduce the testimony.

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 190 Filed 12/05/18 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 California

C. Motion to Exclude Mention of Potential Hardship Transfer

Defendants “seek an order excluding from trial all testimony and evidence regarding the 

issue of a ‘hardship transfer’” including the testimony of Ted Henderson, Defendant’s “designee 

regarding hardship transfers.” Dkt. No. 179 at 4. Defendants claim that the proffered evidence is 

not relevant, that this theory of FMLA interference was not raised in the pleadings, that Plaintiff 

never actually requested a hardship transfer, that it is a collateral matter, and that this issue “was 

never raised and thus was never litigated in this lawsuit.” Id. at 4–8. Plaintiff responds by 

explicating her theory of how evidence of her request for a hardship transfer helps to establish her 

claim of FMLA discouragement. See Dkt. No. 181 at 3–5.

Whether Plaintiff requested a hardship transfer is an issue for the jury to resolve as it 

determines whether Plaintiff was discouraged from exercising her right to FMLA leave. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to exclude mention of potential hardship 

transfer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

12/5/2018

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 190 Filed 12/05/18 Page 3 of 3