Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

 Accordingly, the Court does not consider plaintiff’s contention that plaintiff has “substantial

need” for Mr. Coffman’s testimony.

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDEX CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00098 SI

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND MOTION

TO EXCLUDE WITNESSES LISTED ON

PLAINTIFF’S NOVEMBER 3, 2006

WITNESS LIST

The Court has received defendant’s motion to quash subpoenas and motion to exclude certain

witnesses from plaintiff Pernell Evans’ revised witness list. (Docket Nos. 625, 627). On November 7,

2006, plaintiff filed oppositions which are largely devoid of specific information or argument. The

Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and the revised witness list, and makes the following general

rulings. 

First, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion’s motion to quash the subpoena as to the witness

not listed on plaintiff’s revised list, “Mike Kaufman” or “Mike Coffman.”1 Second, the Court GRANTS

defendant’s motion to quash the subpoenas for witnesses Eddie Thomas, Salvadore Martinez, Steve Soo

Hoo, Tim Soo Hoo, Gerald Pacheco, Daniel Lias, and Mireya Pachevo. Although plaintiff now asserts

that these witnesses will be used “solely for impeachment,” this is at odds with the descriptions of these

witnesses’ testimony in plaintiff’s revised witness list. This ruling is without prejudice to

reconsideration during trial subject to an offer of proof as to their impeachment/rebuttal testimony. 

Finally, the Court will exclude any witnesses who were not fairly disclosed to FedEx during the

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 631 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

 Plaintiff’s opposition did not address “Tim Johns” or “Tim Jones.” If plaintiff intends to call

this witness at trial, plaintiff’s supplemental papers must specifically address this witness.

2

pretrial phases of this litigation. Plaintiff contends that at his deposition he testified about Randy Gin,

Mike Kelly, Tanda Brown, Jazmin Evans and Marvin Hancock.2 Plaintiff shall file a supplemental

response to defendant’s motions by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2006. Plaintiff’s

supplemental papers shall specifically address how Evans’ deposition testimony provided notice of the

proposed trial testimony, and shall attach copies of relevant portions of Evans’ deposition testimony.

In addition, for any witness whom plaintiff contends was properly disclosed, plaintiff shall also address

how that witness’ testimony is relevant to plaintiff’s remaining retaliation claims. 

After review of plaintiff’s supplemental papers, the Court shall schedule a hearing if necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2006

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 631 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2