Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03671/USCOURTS-cand-4_03-cv-03671-6/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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOLORES GALINDO,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 03-3671 PJH

v. SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER

AMERICAN AIRLINES,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

Witnesses:

With regard to plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s witness list, the court overrules those

objections based on defendant’s failure to formally disclose certain names in view of the

abundant notice of the existence of these witnesses and the materiality of their testimony. 

With regard to plaintiff’s objection based on defendant’s failure to adequately summarize the

anticipated testimony from each of the witnesses, the court sustains the objection, but declines

to exclude the witnesses from defendant’s case in chief on this basis. Instead, defendant is

ordered to file an amended witness list providing such summaries no later than September 7,

2005.

Evidence:

The court overrules plaintiff’s objections to defendant’s exhibits A-5, A-7, A-19, A-25,

A-29, as moot in view of the court’s rulings on the various in limine motions. Exhibit A-21

appears to the court to be relevant. However, the relevance of A-16 and A-18 is not apparent

and the court will reserve ruling on them until proffered at trial.

Defendant’s Objections:

As plaintiff has not had an opportunity to respond to these objections which were

lodged without leave of court, the court will defer argument and ruling on them until trial. 

Case 4:03-cv-03671-PJH Document 105 Filed 09/02/05 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

However, if defendant is correct that plaintiff has never disclosed her calculation of damages,

she shall do so no later than September 7, 2005, or be foreclosed from attempting to prove

them at trial. If it is plaintiff’s position that she has made this disclosure, she shall by letter to

defense counsel, identify which documents contain her damages calculation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cv-03671-PJH Document 105 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 2