Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00482/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00482-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981cv Civil Rights

---

1

3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANE WALSH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SEAN J. STACKLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION [Doc. 81] IN LIMINE AND 

VACATING MOTION HEARING

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion in limine seeking to exclude 

testimony regarding Jon Kochersberger (“Kochersberger”) undergoing a vasectomy and 

allegedly viewing pornography on his home computer. By way of background, this is a 

Title VII case alleging, inter alia, gender discrimination and creation of a hostile work 

environment through gender based harassment. Plaintiff Diane Walsh (“Walsh”) alleges 

that, while serving as a civilian employee in the Environmental Division of Marine Corps 

Air Station Camp Pendleton, she suffered discrimination and harassment based on her 

gender. 

Of relevance to the present motion, Walsh alleges that Kochersberger, who was her

direct supervisor, participated in this discrimination and harassment by unlawfully 

detaining her in his office for some unspecified period of time. Per Walsh, 

Kochersberger attempted to make her provide documentation on a specific environmental 

Case 3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM Document 89 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM

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

project even though Walsh felt she would be violating environmental regulations by 

doing so. Walsh testifies that she responded to Kochersberger by stating “you might as 

well kill me now.” Under Walsh’s version of the story, Kochersberger then prevented 

her from leaving his office and told her he was going to take her to the hospital. 

Prior to this alleged unlawful detention, Walsh and Kochersberger had a discussion 

about various personal issues they were dealing with. During this conversation, 

Kochersberger allegedly told Walsh that his wife discovered that he had viewed 

pornography on their home computer. Kochersberger also allegedly told Walsh that his 

wife’s discovery contributed to marital problems and led his wife to insist that he undergo

a vasectomy.1 Walsh intends to introduce evidence of these discussions at trial. 

Defendant moves to exclude such evidence, arguing that it is inadmissible pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403.2 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “[t]he court may exclude relevant 

evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of 

the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, 

wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403(b). 

Defendants argue that, even if Kochersberger’s vasectomy or home viewing of 

pornography was relevant, such relevance is substantially outweighed by the danger of 

unfair prejudice. 

Walsh opposes this argument. Walsh’s opposition focuses almost exclusively on 

the relevance inquiry and fails to address the issue of unfair prejudice. As to her Title VII 

gender discrimination claim, Walsh contends that evidence of Kochersberger’s wife 

discovering pornography and then encouraging him to undergo a vasectomy may imply 

 

1 Kochersberger disputes any relationship between his wife’s discovery of pornography and his decision 

to undergo a vasectomy. 

2 Defendants also argue this evidence is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 404, 608, and 

611. Having found the evidence inadmissible under Rule 403, the Court need not consider whether it 

would also be inadmissible pursuant to other rules. 

Case 3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM Document 89 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM

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

that Kochersberger harbors an animosity towards women. Thus, Walsh argues that the 

evidence at issue here suggests that, when Kochersberger momentarily detained Walsh 

after she said “you might as well kill me now”, his true motive was to discriminate 

against her because of her gender rather than his stated intention of preventing her from 

hurting herself. 

Walsh fails to cite any authority to support this argument, and the Court finds it 

rather unpersuasive. Granted, it is not beyond feasibility that Kochersberger might have 

been upset if his wife pressured him into undergoing a vasectomy he did not want. 

However, the leap from any such feelings between Kochersberger and his wife and a 

generalized animus towards all women seems a bit far-fetched. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that Walsh’s proffered evidence carries, at best, minimal relevance as to her Title 

VII discrimination claim. Further, a vasectomy is a highly personal operation undertaken 

for purposes of birth control, and the great potential for evidence of pornography 

consumption to generate juror disgust and antagonism is beyond reasonable dispute. See 

United States v. Harvey, 991 F.2d 981, 996 (2nd Cir. 1993). For these reasons, the Court 

finds that the probative value of this evidence to Walsh’s discrimination claim is 

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and Rule 403 prohibits its 

admission. 

As to her hostile work environment claim, Walsh argues this evidence is relevant 

to establishing that she reasonably perceived her alleged detention as contributing to a 

sexually hostile work environment. To sustain a Title VII hostile work environment 

claim based on sex, a plaintiff must prove that (1) she was subjected to slurs, insults, 

jokes, or other verbal comments or physical contact or intimidation of a sexual nature; 

(2) this conduct was unwelcome; (3) this conduct was sufficiently pervasive or severe to 

create a sexually abusive or hostile work environment; (4) plaintiff perceived the 

environment as hostile; and (5) this perception was objectively reasonable. Fuller v. City 

of Oakland, Cal., 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the alleged detention of 

Walsh was not “a slur, insult, joke, or other verbal comment or physical contact or 

Case 3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM Document 89 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM

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

intimidation of a sexual nature”, it seems rather clear that the detention lacks any 

relevance to Walsh’s sexually hostile work environment claim. Even assuming for 

purposes of argument that this alleged detention could somehow be construed as conduct 

of a sexual nature, the risk of unfair prejudice would substantially outweigh the

evidence’s probative value for the same reasons discussed above in connection with the 

discrimination claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that Rule 403 prohibits the 

introduction of this evidence as to the hostile work environment claim. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff is 

ordered not to introduce any evidence concerning (1) Kochersberger’s vasectomy; or (2) 

any pornography Kochersberger may have viewed in the privacy of his home. The 

hearing on this motion previously set for June 8, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. is hereby 

VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2017

 

 

Case 3:14-cv-00482-L-BLM Document 89 Filed 06/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4