Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00235/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-00235-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAVON HILL, JR.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC and DOES 1-

20,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-00235 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING ON MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

APRIL 9, 2010 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s

questions contained herein.

Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 73 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Where – specifically – in the record are the following facts addressed or controverted?

a. Plaintiff can perform all of the essential functions of his former

employment with his left hand.

b. Plaintiff can perform all of the essential functions of his former

employment without using a brace.

c. Bayer engaged in an interactive process with Plaintiff after Dr. Chin

removed Plaintiff’s necessary restrictions.

2. Do the two reports from Dr. Chin create a disputed issue of fact regarding whether

Plaintiff was actually permanently disabled and unable to perform the essential functions

of his former employment?

3. How does Plaintiff respond to the analysis of Quinn v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Cal. App.

4th 472, 482-83 (2000), in which the court found that it was entirely within the

discretion of the employer to set physical criteria for the hiring process? Does Bayer

have unfettered discretion to set its standard operating procedures in compliance with

regulatory requirements?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00235-JSW Document 73 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2