Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANGUAGE LINE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S 

OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL 

EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 343, 362

Defendant Language Line, LLC (“Defendant”) has filed objections to Plaintiff Nathalie 

Thuy Van’s (“Plaintiff”) trial exhibits, ECF No. 343, which Plaintiff has opposed, ECF No. 346. 

Defendant has also filed proposed redactions to Plaintiff’s trial exhibits, ECF No. 362, which 

Plaintiff opposes, ECF No. 367. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in 

the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court 

rules on Defendant’s objections as follows:

EXHIBIT NO. COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

201 Sustained. 

202 Overruled.

203 Overruled.

204 Sustained. The 1997 new hire documents do not 

“prove the starting date of her employment at 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 376 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

Northern District of California

Language Line, LLC,” as Plaintiff claims. The 1997 

new hire documents are from AT&T Language Line 

Services, not Language Line, LLC. 

205 Overruled.

206 Overruled.

207 Overruled.

208 Overruled.

209 Overruled.

210 – Bates pages 000761-000764, 

000767

Overruled. 

The redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 

are granted as to paragraph 6 of Bates 000762-000763. 

Otherwise, Defendant’s proposed redactions are 

denied.

211 Overruled. 

212 Overruled.

217 – pages 2-5, 53-60 Defendants propose redacting information prior to 

August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability 

for any cause of action in the instant case, from 

Plaintiff’s summary chart. ECF No. 362. Defendant’s 

proposed redaction is granted. 

Defendant’s objection to pay statements prior to 

August 21, 2010 is granted. 

218 – pages 1-32, 33 Defendants propose redacting information prior to 

August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability 

for any cause of action in the instant case, on Plaintiff’s 

August 2010 monthly calendar. ECF No. 362. 

Defendant’s proposed redaction is granted. 

Defendant’s objection to monthly calendars prior to 

August 21, 2010 is granted. 

219 – pages 1-9 Overruled. 

220 – Bates pages 001944-001945, 

004902

Defendant did not object to Bates 004901. Overruled 

as to Bates 004902. Sustained as to Bates 001944-

001945 which duplicate Bates 004901-4902. The 

redactions proposed by Defendant in ECF No. 362 are 

denied.

221 – Bates pages 001824, 001942 Overruled. The redactions proposed by Defendant in 

ECF No. 362 are denied.

Confidential 222 Overruled. However, the document shall be submitted 

under seal. 

223 – 001273, 001275, 001279 Overruled. 

The Court rules on the redactions proposed by 

Defendant in ECF No. 362 as follows:

- Granted as to the term “regular hours” on Bates 

001273.

- Granted as to “fraudulently” and “and falsified” 

on Bates 001279.

- Granted as to Plaintiff’s redactions on Bates 

001273, 001275, 001279.

- Otherwise denied.

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 376 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

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

Northern District of California

224 Defendant and Plaintiff are in agreement as to what 

should be redacted. The Court grants the parties’ 

redactions as set forth in ECF No. 362. 

225 Overruled as to LLS003946 and LLS003947. 

Sustained as to LLS003952 because it is a duplicate of 

LLS003947. 

The parties shall redact “fraudulently” and “Superior” 

from LLS 003947.

226 Sustained. 

227 Sustained as to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. 

Otherwise overruled.

228 Sustained.

229 Sustained.

230 Sustained.

231 Sustained.

233 Sustained. 

234 – Bates pages 003111 - 003121 Defendants propose redacting information prior to 

August 21, 2010, which is the earliest date of liability 

for any cause of action in the instant case. ECF No. 

362. Defendant’s proposed redactions are granted and 

thus moot Defendant’s objection. 

235 Sustained.

236 Sustained.

237 Sustained.

238 Sustained.

239 Sustained. 

240 – 6:19-25; 10:2-4 Sustained. The redactions proposed by Defendant in 

ECF No. 362 are moot.

241 Sustained.

242 See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and 

Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

243 See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and 

Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

244 Overruled.

245 Overruled.

246 See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and 

Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

247 See Court’s Order Re Plaintiff’s Deposition and 

Discovery Designations, ECF No. 373.

248 Overruled. 

249 Sustained.

250 Overruled.

251 Sustained.

252 Overruled.

253 Overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 376 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 3