Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-05632-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

KRISHNA REDDY, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(Re: Docket Nos. 153, 154, 156, 157, 

159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 

177)

 

 Before the court are Plaintiff Krishna Reddy and Defendants Nuance Communications, Inc. 

et al.’s motions in limine.1 The parties appeared last week at a pre-trial conference and 

supplemented their briefing on the motions with oral argument.2

 

 As a preliminary matter, and as previewed at the hearing, the court provides the following 

guidance on trial procedures. The trial will begin on September 8, 2015. Each side will have no 

more than 10 hours of trial time, including opening and closing arguments. Opening and closing 

arguments are limited to no more than 60 minutes per side. The parties shall meet and confer 

regarding evidence and demonstratives each day before they move to admit that evidence or use 

 

1 See Docket Nos. 153, 154, 156, 157, 159, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 177. 

2 See Docket No. 256. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 1 of 10
2 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

those demonstratives. This will enable the court to address any issues from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 

each morning before trial. The jury will be in session from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On the first day 

of trial, the undersigned will conduct the voir dire. The court and the parties will then meet and 

dismiss jurors based on hardship, cause and preemptory challenges. Opening arguments will take 

place on the first day of trial immediately following voir dire. The court will hold a charge 

conference covering the jury instructions and verdict form at the end of the second day of trial. 

As for the motions in limine, also as previewed at the hearing, the court GRANTS-INPART and DENIES-IN-PART the requested relief, as explained below. 

A. Docket Nos. 153, 159, 174: Reddy’s MIL Nos. 1 and 5 to preclude Nuance from 

disclosing Reddy’s prior lawsuits and vexatious litigant designations in unrelated 

cases; Nuance’s MIL No. 7 to permit Nuance to introduce evidence of Reddy’s 

litigation history 

Reddy seeks to exclude disclosure of her prior lawsuits and vexatious litigant designations 

in unrelated cases.3

 She contends such evidence is irrelevant and prejudicial pursuant to Fed. R. 

Evid. 103(d), 403 and 404. Nuance responds that the evidence should be admitted under Fed. R. 

Evid 404(a)4 to show proof of Reddy’s motive, opportunity, intent, preparation and plan to claim 

discrimination as a defense, or alternatively under Fed. R. Evid. 608(a)5 as evidence of Reddy’s 

character for truthfulness. 

 

3 See Docket Nos. 153, 159. See also Docket No. 184 at 2. Since 1993, Reddy has filed multiple 

lawsuits against apparently every employer she has worked for during the same period. The record 

shows that Reddy has filed in excess of 20 pro se lawsuits against her former employers, including 

Redlands Community Hospital, Loma Linda Community Hospital, MedQuist, Gilbert Medical 

Transcription Service, WebMedx and the instant action. See Case No. 5:12-cv-01324-PSG, Docket 

No. 121 at 7-14, Order Deeming Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant. Each case has included a claim of 

employment discrimination. See id. at 7, 9-12. To date, Reddy has not prevailed in a single action, 

and instead, her suits have been found frivolous, and she has been declared a vexatious litigant on 

at least four occasions. See id. at 13-14. 

4 See Docket No. 184 at 3. 

5 See Docket Nos. 174, 184. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 2 of 10
3 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

Information regarding Reddy’s unrelated suits and vexatious litigant designations might be 

relevant to this case, but it would be and highly prejudicial.6 However incredible her previous suits 

may have been, they do not sufficiently bear on the circumstances here to warrant the obvious 

prejudice Reddy will suffer.7

 Unless Reddy herself specifically insinuates that she has had no 

previous suits or designations as a vexatious litigant, Reddy’s motion to exclude is GRANTED, 

and Nuance’s motion is DENIED. 

B. Docket No. 154: Reddy’s MIL No. 2 to preclude Nuance from introducing evidence of 

failure to make initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1); and for 

sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i-vi) 

Reddy claims Nuance did not serve any initial disclosures.8

 Reddy therefore seeks to 

preclude Nuance from introducing “any evidence or testimony during trial,”9 or evidence of “the 

fact that [Reddy] had sought to exclude Nuance’s evidence, or to any ruling on the motion in limine 

by the Court, with sanctions to be imposed for any violations of the order in limine with a default 

judgment for the amount sought against each of the defendants and recommendations to the State 

Bar of California for disciplinary proceedings against their attorneys.”10 Though Nuance says it 

sent initial disclosures on the March 6, 2012 deadline to the address Reddy provided,11 Reddy 

 

6 See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

7 See Mathis v. Phillips Chevrolet, Inc., 269 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 2001) (upholding exclusion at 

trial of evidence of plaintiffs’ other pending lawsuits); Koch v. Koch Industries, Inc., 203 F.3d 

1202, 1227 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that the district court should have excluded evidence of other 

lawsuits as irrelevant). 

8 See Docket No. 154 at 1; but see Docket No. 218, Ex. A at 7-8. As addressed in her MIL No. 4, 

Reddy also notes that Nuance filed a partial answer late, without leave, after discovery closed. See 

Docket No. 102. 

9 See Docket No. 154 at 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)’s mandatory disclosures). 

10 See id. at 8. 

11 Docket No. 218, Ex. A at 7-8. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 3 of 10
4 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

contends this service was invalid.12 She claimed the initial disclosures were still missing nine 

months after the deadline.13 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), the court has discretion to sanction a party who fails to 

disclose. In light of the proof of service filed by Nuance, the court is satisfied that Reddy had fair 

notice of the information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).14 Reddy’s motion to exclude all of 

Nuance’s evidence and for further sanctions is DENIED. 

C. Docket No. 156: Reddy’s MIL No. 3 to preclude Nuance from substituting for 

Defendant Focus Infomatics, Inc. or asserting Nuance was Reddy’s employer 

Because the court has clarified that Focus has been dismissed,15 Reddy’s motion to preclude 

Nuance from substituting for Focus is DENIED AS MOOT. 

D. Docket No. 157: Reddy’s MIL No. 4 to exclude Nuance’s partial defenses 

Reddy moves to exclude Nuance’s partial defenses in its answer as well as its other 

pleadings that Reddy maintains were late and to limit Nuance’s defenses at trial to the “two-and-ahalf” causes of action Nuance responded to in its partial motion to dismiss.16 Reddy asserts that 

because of Nuance’s late filing, she was unable to pursue discovery.17 

The court has addressed this issue on several prior occasions.18 As the court explained 

before, Nuance has responded to each of Reddy’s claims in this case.19 Reddy also had a fair 

 

12 See Docket No. 218 at 2. 

13 See Docket No. 185 at 1. 

14 See Docket No. 218, Ex. A at 7-8. 

15 See Docket No. 259. 

16 See Docket No. 157 at 1. 

17 See id. at 2. 

18 See Docket Nos. 76, 115, 161, 259. 

19 See Docket No. 76 (providing Reddy a March 30, 2012 deadline to file an amended complaint, 

and Nuance 14 days to answer after the filing of that amended complaint); Docket No. 102 

(answering on September 4, 2012); Docket No. 115 at 3 (denying Reddy’s motion for 

reconsideration because Nuance’s time to answer was extended and Reddy did not meet the 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 4 of 10
5 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

opportunity to take discovery on those claims that survived, and Reddy showed no prejudice from 

Nuance’s delay.20 Her broader contentions that Nuance’s defenses are “not viable” are matters 

properly left to the jury.21 Reddy’s motion to exclude Nuance’s partial defenses and “other belated 

pleadings” is DENIED. 

E. Docket No. 168: Nuance’s MIL No. 1 to exclude all mention of insurance coverage 

Nuance seeks to preclude any evidence that Nuance is covered by an insurance policy or 

associated with an insurer, because such evidence is inadmissible and unfairly prejudicial.22 Reddy 

cites Larez v. Holcomb for the proposition that “FRE 411 . . . applies only to evidence concerning 

‘liability insurance’” and is admissible when relevant to the issue of damages or punitive 

damages.23 But that case stood only for the proposition that a “city’s indemnification policy is not 

a policy of ‘liability insurance’” in a Section 1983 case.24 Nuance’s motion to exclude is 

GRANTED. 

F. Docket No. 169: Nuance’s MIL No. 2 to exclude evidence of Nuance’s net worth 

Nuance moves to exclude any reference to Nuance’s net worth or financial condition for 

purposes of damages unless the jury returns a verdict for Reddy finding that Nuance has been 

found guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. Nuance contends such information is not probative 

 

requirements for a motion for reconsideration); Docket No. 161 at 1 (denying Reddy’s motion to 

strike Nuance’s answer as moot, the court having previously addressed the motion as well as a 

motion for reconsideration on the same issue). 

20 See Docket No. 61 (closing fact discovery August 15, 2012); Docket No. 135 at 2 (denying 

Nuance’s motion to re-open discovery, noting the parties “elected at their own peril not to complete 

discovery.”) 

21 See Docket No. 157 at 6. 

22 Fed. R. Evid. 401-403, 411 (“Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is 

not admissible upon the issue of whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully.”). 

23 Larez v. Holcomb, 16 F.3d 1513, 1524 (9th Cir. 1994). 

24 Id. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 5 of 10
6 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

and would be prejudicial.25 Because the court declines to bifurcate the trial and Reddy claims she 

is entitled to punitive damages, the relevance of Nuance’s net worth outweighs any prejudice.26 

Nuance’s motion to exclude reference to its net worth is DENIED. 

G. Docket No. 170: Nuance’s MIL No. 3 to exclude evidence beyond the scope of the 

EEOC charge 

Nuance seeks to preclude Reddy from referring to evidence beyond the scope of the Charge 

of Discrimination she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.27 Specifically, 

Nuance aims to preclude Reddy from any contentions that she was harassed and subject to a hostile 

work environment.28 Nuance says that because Reddy’s charge does not provide facts that would 

support a claim for harassment or hostile work environment, she has not exhausted her 

administrative remedies as to those claims.29 Reddy responds that her charge does make mention 

of the harassment and hostile work environment she allegedly experienced at Focus.30 

Nuance is correct that Reddy may not produce evidence outside the scope of her charge. 

But the charge clearly references discrimination, and the Ninth Circuit has consistently found that 

harassment and hostile work environment constitute discrimination.31 Nuance’s motion to exclude 

this evidence is DENIED. 

 

25 See Docket No. 169 at 3-4; Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

26 See Docket No. 197 at 4, TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n.28 (1993) 

(holding evidence of net worth is “typically considered in assessing punitive damages.”); see also

White v. Ford Motor Co., 500 F.3d 963, 976-77 (9th Cir. 2007). 

27 See Docket No. 170 at 2. 

28 See id.; Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

29 See Docket No. 170 at 4. 

30 See Docket No. 198 at 2. 

31 See Docket No. 1 at 11-13, 26; Docket No. 22-2 at 49; Docket No. 155-6 at 2. Cf. Nichols. v. 

Azteca Rest. Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2001) (“It is by now clear that sexual 

harassment in the form of a hostile work environment constitutes sex discrimination.”); Vasquez v. 

Cnty. Of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended (Jan. 2, 2004) (holding 

sexual harassment cases relevant to cases of racial harassment). 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 6 of 10
7 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

H. Docket No. 171: Nuance’s MIL No. 4 to preclude Reddy from referring to Nuance 

CEO Ricci or calling him as a witness 

Nuance moves to preclude Reddy from calling Nuance CEO Paul Ricci as a witness at trial 

or from offering into evidence comments or documents regarding Ricci.32 Nuance says that Ricci 

has no knowledge of the facts of the case, and comments or documents about him are irrelevant 

and could only be used for an improper purpose.33 Nuance argues that calling Ricci as an “apex 

witness” would only serve to harass him and disrupt his activities as chief executive.34 

In her complaint, Reddy claims Ricci “had the authority to undo the illegal activities of the 

other individual defendants” but “chose not to do so, thus ratif[ying] after the fact, the actions of 

each of the other defendants.”35 Ricci also responded indirectly to an email by Reddy by directing 

the email to underlings.36 Reddy says Ricci therefore is relevant to Reddy’s theory that an officer 

of Nuance either condoned the acts of its employees and or acted negligently.37 

Because evidence regarding Ricci would not unduly prejudice Nuance, Nuance’s motion to 

preclude evidence referring to Ricci is DENIED. However, Nuance’s request to preclude Reddy 

from calling Ricci as a witness is GRANTED. Ricci has been dismissed as a defendant and does 

not appear to know anything about the case. Reddy’s ratification theory would require trial 

testimony by any corporate executive in any case. Allowing Reddy to call Ricci—when she did 

not even see to depose him—would be harassment.38

 

32 See Docket No. 171 at 1. 

33 See id. at 2. 

34 See id.

35 See Docket No. 1 at 10, 18-20. 

36 See Docket No. 171 at 12. 

37 See Docket No. 199 at 2, 3. 

38 See Fed. R. Evid. 403; Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Case No. 04-cv-8400-SGL, 

Docket No. 478 at 15 (granting motion in limine to preclude the testimony of apex witness) (C.D. 

Cal. March 13, 2009); cf. AB v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., Case No. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 7 of 10
8 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

I. Docket No. 172: Nuance’s MIL No. 5 to exclude purported message board comments 

Nuance seeks to preclude Reddy from offering evidence of instant messenger chat sessions 

and posts from online messenger boards, on the grounds that they cannot be authenticated, are 

hearsay not subject to an exception, are irrelevant and risk confusing and misleading the jury.39 

Reddy seeks to include the exhibits because they are relevant to her theory that she is superior to 

colleagues who were promoted over her.40 Reddy says she can authenticate the exhibits because 

she was a participant of the instant messages and because in a declaration she attested to the 

message board messages’ authenticity.41 

Reddy need only make a prima facie showing of authenticity—the rule requires proof 

sufficient to support a finding that a reasonable juror could find in favor of the authenticity of the 

exhibits.42 Reddy may be able to lay a proper foundation. The exhibits may survive a hearsay 

objection if offered not for the truth of the matter asserted. Their potential relevance to Reddy’s 

theory outweighs any potential prejudice to Nuance. Nuance’s motion to exclude the exhibits is 

DENIED. 

J. Docket No. 173: Nuance’s MIL No. 6 to exclude improper opinion testimony 

Nuance moves to preclude Reddy from making reference to or offering into evidence lay 

opinion testimony concerning whether she was categorized as “ineligible for rehire” following her 

 

100100649-AJN, Control No. 12090793, Phila. Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. (Sept. 20, 2012) (precluding 

CEO of Johnson & Johnson from testifying in trial in response to motion to quash). 

 

39 See Docket No. 172 at 2. 

40 See Docket No. 199 at 2. 

41 See id. at 3 (providing the URLs http://www.mtstars.com/c-Mgmt-is-US-based-but-BAD--

85571.html and http://www.mtstars.com/c-In-my-opinion-this-is-not-a-good-company--

85929.html). 

42 See United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 5 J. WEINSTEIN & M.

BERGER, WEINSTEIN’S EVIDENCE ¶ 901(a) [01], at 901-16 to -17 (1983)). 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 8 of 10
9 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

May 7, 2009 lay-off.43 Nuance says Reddy has no first-hand knowledge and no discovery that 

would permit her to testify whether her file was marked “ineligible for rehire.”44 

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a 

finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.45 “Personal knowledge” means 

knowledge of a fact perceived by the senses, by one who has had an opportunity to observe and 

must have actually observed the fact.46 “If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the 

form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) 

helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) 

not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”47

Reddy has not shown that she personally observed her categorization as “ineligible for 

rehire.” Her opinion is not rationally based on her perception, and nor is it helpful to 

understanding her testimony or determining a fact in issue. In oral argument, Reddy represented to 

the court that she personally would not testify that she was categorized as “ineligible for rehire.”48 

Nuance’s motion to exclude Reddy’s testimony that she was categorized as “ineligible for rehire” 

is GRANTED. 

 

43 See Docket No. 173 at 2. 

44 See id. 

45 See Fed. R. Evid. 602. 

46 See Fed. R. Evid. 602 advisory committee’s note to 1972 proposed rules (citing McCormick § 

10, p. 19). 

47 Fed. R. Evid. 701. 

48 See Docket No. 256. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 9 of 10
10 

Case No. 5:11-cv-05632-PSG 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE: MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

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 

K. Docket No. 177: Reddy’s MIL No. 7 to call the individual named defendants and 

other witnesses associated with them as “hostile witnesses” 

Reddy seeks to call the individual named defendants and other associated witnesses as 

adverse party/identified with an adverse party “hostile witnesses” under Fed. R. Evid. 611.49 While 

leading questions typically should not be use on direct examination, they may be employed when a 

party calls a hostile witness.50 Nuance does not comment on whether Reddy should be able to call 

the witnesses as hostile, but only that a motion in limine is not the proper vehicle for Reddy to 

request the attendance of witnesses at trial.51

Nuance is right as a matter of procedure. But the court sees little reason not to resolve this 

dispute well before trial. Reddy’s request is reasonable. With the exception of Ricci, who need not 

testify, Reddy’s motion is GRANTED. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 5, 2015 

 _________________________________ 

 PAUL S. GREWAL 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

 

49 See Docket No. 177 at 2 (naming Ricci, Nauman, Dorchuck, Nardone, Hagen, Liptak and 

Coffey, as well as Edith Vargas, Kathy Barajas, Donna Russell, Deborah Sturges and Tammy 

Willets). 

50 See Fed. R. Evid. 611. 

51 See Docket No. 188 at 1-2. 

Case 5:11-cv-05632-PSG Document 260 Filed 08/05/15 Page 10 of 10