Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05671/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05671-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 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

VICTOR GUERRERO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION;

STATE PERSONNEL BOARD; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 13-05671 WHA

TENTATIVE ORDER RE OBJECTIONS

TO FRCP 26 DISCLOSURES

Each side has until MAY 4 AT NOON, to file specific objections to this tentative order

regarding objections to FRCP 26 disclosures. Each side’s submission shall NOT EXCEED 

ONE PAGE.

GUERRERO’S OBJECTIONS

1. Guerrero objects to the disclosure of plaintiff’s counsel Attorney Christopher Ho

as a trial witness regarding his summary of applicant files. Defendants respond that they do not

intend to call Attorney Ho (and have not subpoenaed him) but do intend to use his summary of

the applicant files (which was filed in the summary judgment record).

This objection is SUSTAINED. Again, counsel’s summary filed in the summary

judgment record is not part of the trial record. The parties may, however, meet-and-confer to

see if they can stipulate to a summary of pertinent applicant files. CDCR should not call

plaintiff’s trial counsel as a witness at trial.

2. Guerrero objects to the disclosure of Beverly Bueno to testify about CDCR’s

annual workforce analysis report and the racial make-up of the work force. Guerrero contends

that none of her testimony is relevant under Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 442 (1982),

Case 3:13-cv-05671-WHA Document 197 Filed 04/30/15 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

which held that “bottom-line” statistics do not preclude a plaintiff from establishing a prima

facie case under Title VII.

This objection is OVERRULED. This is without prejudice to other specific

objections at trial. 

3. Guerrero objects to the disclosure of Kimberli Alexander, Ceclia Campos,

Madhavi Annavajjyal, and J.R. Antablian to testify about CDCR’s academy completion rates. 

Guerrero contends that none of their testimony is “relevant to the issues germane to this action.”

This objection is OVERRULED. CDCR, however, should please remember the

trial time limits. Four witnesses to testify about CDCR’s academy completion rates is likely too

much. This ruling is without prejudice to other specific objections at trial.

4. Guerrero objects to the disclosure of Joleen Martin to testify about SPB’s budget

and costs. Guerrero contends that her testimony is only relevant to the dismissed procedural

due process claim. SPB did not respond to Guerrero’s objection. 

This objection is SUSTAINED. The due process claim has been dismissed.

CDCR’S OBJECTIONS

5. CDCR objects to Guerrero’s amended FRCP 26 disclosures which state that

CDCR’s counsel Attorneys Fiel Tigno and Christopher Young may be called to authenticate

documents. CDCR represents that it does not have one person as a “custodian of records.”

This objection is SUSTAINED. Trial counsel should not be called to authenticate

documents. Both sides shall promptly meet-and-confer to see if they can fully resolve all their

authentication issues. 

6. CDCR’s specific objections to specific exhibits should be timely renewed at

trial. We will deal with each proffered exhibit at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:13-cv-05671-WHA Document 197 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 2