Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02660/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02660-27/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

David Halterman,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

Legato Software, a Division of EMC

Corporation, et al.,

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 04-02660 JW 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO EXCLUDE THE

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN ZEITZ

Plaintiff David Halterman initiated this suit for wrongful termination against his former

employer Legato Software, a Division of EMC Corporation, and EMC Corporation dba EMC

Peripherals, Inc. Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s prayer for relief included emotional distress damages,

Plaintiff was ordered to undergo a mental examination under Rule 35, Fed.R.Civ.P., by Defendants’

retained expert, Dr. John Zeitz. See Magistrate Judge Trumbull’s Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Motion to Compel an Independent Mental Examination and Answers to Deposition

Questions (“Magistrate Judge’s Order”).

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to exclude Dr. Zeitz’s testimony in its

entirety on the grounds that (1) the examination was, in essence, used as an improper second

deposition; (2) the scope of the examination violated the Magistrate Judge’s Order and (3) Dr.

Zeitz’s report is “replete with patently inappropriate analysis and non-expert opinion.” Plaintiff’s

Motion, pp. 13-14. The Court finds it appropriate to take the motion under submission for decision

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 245 Filed 03/23/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Based upon all papers filed to date, the Court finds that Dr. Zeitz neither conducted an

improper second deposition, nor exceeded the scope of the Magistrate Judge’s Order. It was

appropriate for Dr. Zeitz to review the factual details of Plaintiff’s employment, including his

interactions with other employees, e-mails, memos, and performance reviews. It was also

appropriate for Dr. Zeitz to review details of Plaintiff’s past employment with OSI. 

The Court, however, finds that portions of Dr. Zeitz’s report contain inappropriate analysis

and non-expert opinion. Rather than attempt to delineate which portions of the report should be

excluded in the context of the instant motion, the Court prefers to conduct a conference to establish a

set of ground rules for Dr. Zeitz’s expert testimony at trial. 

In conclusion, the motion to exclude Dr. Zeitz’s testimony in its entirety is denied. The

Court will conduct a conference regarding the scope of Dr. Zeitz’s testimony on May 18, 2006 at

11:00 a.m. 

Dated: March 22, 2006

04cv2660zeitz

 /s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 245 Filed 03/23/06 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

David Angle dave@daveangle.com

Gary R. Siniscalco grsiniscalco@orrick.com

Jeffrey A. Ross jeffross@dicksonross.com

Kathryn Burkett Dickson kbdickson@dicksonross.com

Leah Linda Scholer lscholer@orrick.com

Lynne C. Hermle lchermle@orrick.com

Michael D. Weil mweil@orrick.com

Dated: March 23, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02660-JW Document 245 Filed 03/23/06 Page 3 of 3