Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00827-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHARON PATERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

GENERAL SERVICES, RAYMOND

ASBELL AND INTER-CON SECURITY

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________/

No. 2:05-cv-00827-MCE-JFM

AMENDED FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER

TRIAL DATE: March 3, 2008

TIME: 9:00 a.m.

After reviewing the parties' Final Pretrial Statement, the

Court makes the following orders: 

I. JURISDICTION/VENUE

Jurisdiction is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. sections 1331,

1343, 1367 and 42 U.S.C. section 2000e et seq. Jurisdiction and

venue are not contested. 

II. JURY

Both parties timely demanded a jury trial pursuant to

Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 16
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

2

III. UNDISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

1. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. is a private provider

of security guard services.

2. Inter-Con is an employer within the meaning of the

Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII.

3. Inter-Con contracts with the State of California to

provide security guards services for certain state facilities.

4. Inter-Con employed Sharon Paterson from August 18,

2002 until her termination.

5. In November 2002, Paterson complained (first to the

State, then to Inter-Con) that Alvin Jones (a janitorial

supervisor employed by the State) sexually harassed her during

October and November 2002.

6. After Paterson complained about Jones' conduct,

Inter-Con removed her from that assignment.

7. Paterson began a leave of absence from Inter-Con in

December 2002.

8. When she returned from her leave of absence in July

2003, Paterson was assigned by Inter-Con to work as a supervisor

at parking facilities run by the State's Department of General

Services ("DGS").

9. At the time of Paterson's assignment to DGS, Ray

Asbell was a State employee whose responsibilities included

overseeing the Inter-Con contract.

10. Paterson alleges that Asbell sexually harassed her. 

Asbell denied that he did so.

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 16
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

3

11. During her employment, Paterson never complained to

anyone at Inter-Con about alleged harassment by Asbell.

12. On February 19, 2004, Paterson submitted a

Pre-Complaint Questionnaire to the California Department of Fair

Employment and Housing ("DFEH"). A true and correct copy of

that Questionnaire is Exhibit RR as referenced in Defendant's

Exhibit List.

13. On February 23, 2004, Paterson provided a written

statement to the DFEH and filled out a supplement to her

pre-complaint questionnaire. True and correct copies are

referenced in Defendant's Exhibit List as Exhibits SS and TT,

respectively.

14. In November 2002, Paterson complained (first to the

State, then to Inter-Con) that Alvin Jones (a janitorial

supervisor employed by the State) sexually harassed her during

October and November 2002.

15. After Paterson complained about Jones' conduct,

Inter-Con removed her from that assignment.

16. On October 1, 2003, Paterson was involved in an

incident with Skip Evey, a State employee.

17. Inter-Con suspended Paterson on October 6, 2003.

18. On the Employee Counseling Report documenting the

suspension, Paterson apologized for her behavior, stated that

she had acted unprofessionally, and admitted that she made a

mistake.

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 16
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

4

19. On October 7, 2003, Asbell (on behalf of DGS) wrote

Inter-Con demanding that Paterson be removed from the DGS

assignment.

20. On October 9, 2003, Inter-Con terminated Paterson's

employment contending that it did so based upon Asbell's

October 7, 2003 written request that Paterson be removed from

the DGS contract assignment.

IV. DISPUTED FACTUAL ISSUES

The remaining claims for trial are:

A. Disputed Facts Relevant to Multiple Claims

1. Whether Inter-Con and DGS are "joint" employers of

Paterson.

2. Whether Asbell acted as Inter-Con's agent.

Plaintiff contends that the following issues are also in

dispute

3. Whether Inter-Con and DGS were Paterson's "dual"

employers.

4. Whether Asbell acted as Paterson's supervisor?

5. Whether Inter-Con's actions after Plaintiff filed a

formal harassment and retaliation complaint about Alvin Jones'

conduct would deter a reasonable person from reporting

subsequent incidents of sexual harassment and retaliation?

6. Whether Inter-Con took immediate and appropriate

remedial steps once it learned that Asbell had sexually harassed

Paterson?

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 4 of 16
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

5

7. Whether Inter-Con ratified Asbell's conduct by

refusing to correct Plaintiff's termination after it learned

that DGS had determined that Asbell had sexually harassed

Paterson and lied about it.

B. Disputed Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's Claims of

Sexual Harassment in Violation of the FEHA and

Title VII

8. Whether Asbell sexually harassed Paterson.

Plaintiff contends that the following issues are also in

dispute:

9. See #3-#7, above.

Defendant contends the following issues are also in

dispute:

10. Whether Paterson has exhausted her administrative

remedies as to this cause of action. (Plaintiff contends that

the Court has already decided this issue as a matter of law.)

11. Whether Inter-Con reasonably should have known of

alleged harassment by Asbell of Paterson.

C. Disputed Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's Claims of

Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA and

Title VII

12. Whether Inter-Con terminated Paterson in retaliation

for her complaints of alleged harassment by Jones.

Plaintiff contends that the following issues are also in

dispute:

13. See #3-#7, above.

Defendant contends that the following issues are also in

dispute:

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 5 of 16
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

6

14. Whether Paterson has exhausted her administrative

remedies as to this cause of action. (Plaintiff contends that

the Court has already decided this issue as a matter of law.)

D. Disputed Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's Claims of

Violation of the California Constitution

15. Whether Inter-Con terminated Paterson based on her

gender.

Plaintiff contends that the following issues are also in

dispute:

16. See #3-#7, above.

17. Whether Inter-Con terminated Paterson in retaliation

for her complaints of harassment by Jones.

E. Disputed Facts Relevant to Plaintiff's Claims of 

Violation of the Labor Code §1102.5

18. Whether Inter-Con terminated Paterson in retaliation

for her complaints of alleged harassment by Jones.

Plaintiff contends that the following issues are also in

dispute:

19. See #3-#7, above.

Defendant contends that the following issues are also in

dispute:

20. Whether Paterson's complaints to DGS personnel about

Jones in November 2002 constitute complaints to a government or

law enforcement agency within the meaning of the statute.

All issues of fact remaining in dispute are subject to

proof at the time of trial.

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 6 of 16
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

7

V. MOTIONS IN LIMINE

In limine motions shall be filed by February 8, 2008.

Opposition must be filed by February 15, 2008 and any reply must

be filed by February 22, 2008. In limine motions will be heard

by the Court on February 29, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. 

VI. TRIAL BRIEFS

The parties are free to brief any additional points of law

necessary for resolution at trial. Counsel are directed to

Local Rule 16-285 regarding the content of trial briefs. Trial

briefs shall be filed by February 19, 2008. 

VII. WITNESSES

 Plaintiff anticipates calling the witnesses listed on

Attachment "A".

Defendant anticipates calling the witnesses listed on

Attachment "B".

Each party may call a witness designated by the other.

A. No other witnesses will be permitted to testify

unless:

(1) The party offering the witness demonstrates that

the witness is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Conference, or

(2) The witness was discovered after the Pretrial

Conference and the proffering party makes the showing required

in "B" below.

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 7 of 16
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

8

B. Upon the post-pretrial discovery of witnesses, the

attorney shall promptly inform the Court and opposing parties of

the existence of the unlisted witnesses so that the Court may

consider at trial whether the witnesses shall be permitted to

testify. The evidence will not be permitted unless:

(1) The witnesses could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to pretrial;

(2) The Court and opposing counsel were promptly

notified upon discovery of the witnesses;

(3) If time permitted, counsel proffered the

witnesses for deposition;

(4) If time did not permit, a reasonable summary of

the witnesses' testimony was provided by opposing counsel.

C. The parties shall provide an original and three (3) 

copies of their proposed witness list.

VIII. EXHIBITS - SCHEDULES AND SUMMARIES

At present, Plaintiff contemplates by way of exhibits those

listed on Attachment "C".

At present, Defendant contemplates by way of exhibits those

listed on Attachment "D". 

Plaintiff's exhibits shall be listed numerically. 

Defendant's exhibits shall be listed alphabetically. The parties

shall use the standard exhibit stickers provided by the Court: 

pink for Plaintiff and blue for Defendant. 

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 8 of 16
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

9

All multi-page exhibits shall be stapled or otherwise fastened

together and each page within the exhibit shall be numbered. The

list of exhibits shall not include excerpts of depositions which

may be used to impeach witnesses.

Each party may use an exhibit designated by the other. In

the event that Plaintiff and Defendant offer the same exhibit

during trial, that exhibit shall be referred to by the

designation the exhibit is first identified. The Court cautions

the parties to pay attention to this detail so that all

concerned, including the jury, will not be confused by one

exhibit being identified with both a number and a letter.

A. No other exhibits will be permitted to be introduced

unless:

(1) The party proffering the exhibit demonstrates that

the exhibit is for the purpose of rebutting evidence which could

not be reasonably anticipated at the Pretrial Scheduling

Conference, or

(2) The exhibit was discovered after the Pretrial

Scheduling Conference and the proffering party makes the showing

required in paragraph "B", below.

B. Upon the post-pretrial discovery of exhibits, the

attorneys shall promptly inform the Court and opposing counsel of

the existence of such exhibits so that the Court may consider at

trial their admissibility. The exhibits will not be received

unless the proffering party demonstrates:

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 9 of 16
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

10

(1) The exhibits could not reasonably have been

discovered prior to pretrial;

(2) The Court and counsel were promptly informed of

their existence;

(3) Counsel forwarded a copy of the exhibit(s) (if

physically possible) to opposing counsel. If the exhibit(s) may

not be copied, the proffering counsel must show that he has made

the exhibit(s) reasonably available for inspection by opposing

counsel.

C. As to each exhibit, each party is ordered to exchange a

copy identical to the Court's copy, or other reproduction of the

exhibit(s) in a three-ring binder(s) by February 19, 2008. The

attorney or representative for each party is directed to present

the original exhibit(s) and two (2) copies for the Court. The

exhibits should be delivered to the clerk's office on the fourth

floor of this courthouse, to the attention of Stephanie Deutsch,

Deputy Courtroom Clerk, no later than 3:00 p.m., February 19,

2008, or at such earlier time as may be ordered by the Court. 

D. The Court shall be presented with a copy of the

exhibit(s) in a 3-ring binder(s) with a side tab identifying each

exhibit by number or letter. Each binder shall be no larger than

three inches in width and have an identification label on the

front and side panel. 

E. The parties shall also provide a 3-ring binder(s), 

identical to the Court's copy, for use on the witness stand.

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 10 of 16
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

11

F. The parties shall provide an original and three (3) 

copies of an exhibit list (corresponding to the marked exhibits).

IX. DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS

A. Filing Depositions. It is the duty of counsel to 

ensure that any deposition which is to be used at trial has been

filed with the Clerk of the Court. Counsel are cautioned that a

failure to discharge this duty may result in the Court precluding

use of the deposition or imposition of such other sanctions as

the Court deems appropriate.

B. Use of Depositions. The parties are ordered to file

with the Court and exchange between themselves by February 19,

2008 a statement designating portions of depositions intended to

be offered or read into evidence (except for portions to be used

only for impeachment or rebuttal).

C. Interrogatories. The parties are ordered to file with

the Court and exchange between themselves by February 19, 2008

the portions of Answers to Interrogatories which the respective

parties intend to offer or read into evidence at the trial

(except portions to be used only for impeachment or rebuttal).

X. FURTHER DISCOVERY OR MOTIONS

Pursuant to the Court's Pretrial Scheduling Order, all

discovery and law and motion was to have been conducted so as to

be completed as of the date of the Final Pretrial Conference. 

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 11 of 16
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

12

That order is confirmed. The parties are free to engage in

informal agreements regarding discovery and law and motion

matters. However, any such agreements will not be enforceable in

this Court.

XI. AGREED STATEMENTS - JOINT STATEMENT OF CASE

The parties shall submit a short, jointly-prepared statement

concerning the nature of this case that can be read to the jury

at the commencement of trial (NO EXCEPTIONS). The joint

statement of the case shall include in plain concise language the

claims of Plaintiff and claims of other parties, if any, and the

corresponding defense to the claims. The purpose of the joint

statement of the case is to inform the jury at the outset, what

the case is about. The statement shall be provided to the Court

by February 19, 2008 before the commencement of trial.

XII. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS, VOIR DIRE, VERDICT FORM

A. Jury Instructions

Counsel are directed to meet and confer and to attempt to 

agree upon a joint set of jury instructions. Counsel shall use

the Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions and any revisions. 

Alternate instruction or authority may only be used if a Ninth

Circuit Model Jury Instruction is unavailable. The joint set of

instructions shall be lodged with the court clerk by February 19,

2008 and shall be identified as the "Jury Instructions Without

Objection." 

As to instructions on which there is dispute, the parties

shall adhere to the following procedure:

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 12 of 16
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

13

1. The party offering contested instruction (s) shall 

submit the instruction(s) and a brief memorandum in support of

the contested instruction(s).

2. The party shall number the contested instruction 

in a manner that shows where each contested instruction should be

placed in the tendered joint instructions.

3. The contested instruction(s) and memorandum shall 

be filed with the joint set of instructions.

4. The party opposed to the contested instruction(s) 

shall submit a brief memorandum succinctly stating the legal

basis of the objection(s) by February 25, 2008.

All instructions shall be, to the extent possible, concise,

understandable, and free from argument. See Local Rule 51-

163(c). Parties shall also note that any modifications of

instructions from statutory authority, case law or from any form

of pattern instructions must specifically state the modification

by underlining additions and bracketing deletions, except in the

"clean version" for use by the jury.

B. Verdict Form

The parties shall lodge a joint verdict form(s) concurrently

with proposed jury instructions by February 19, 2008. If

necessary, a special verdict or interrogatories shall be included

for all factual disputes submitted to the jury that must be

resolved before questions of law can be decided, and for any

other issue on which specific responses are desired. See Local

Rule 51-163(e). 

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 13 of 16
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

14

Where disagreement exists, the parties shall explain the

disagreement and submit points and authorities supporting their

respective positions by February 25, 2008.

C. Voir Dire

The Court reserves the right to conduct all examination of

prospective jurors. Notwithstanding this reservation, the Court

will permit each side up to ten (10) minutes to conduct voir dire

"for cause", if desired. The parties are directed to meet and

confer and attempt to agree upon a joint set of proposed voir

dire questions. The joint set of voir dire questions shall be

lodged with the Court by February 19, 2008. Parties may also

submit proposed voir dire questions which are disputed. Disputed

voir dire questions shall also be lodged with the Court by

February 25, 2008.

D. Submission of Documents to the Court

At the time of lodging their respective proposed jury

instructions, verdict form(s), and voir dire questions, counsel

shall also electronically mail to the Court in digital format and

compatible with Microsoft Word or WordPerfect, the proposed jury

instructions ("clean version"), verdict form(s), and voir dire

questions. These documents should be sent to

mceorders@caed.uscourts.gov.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 14 of 16
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

15

E. Failure to Participate

The failure of one or more of the parties to participate in

the preparation of joint jury instructions, proposed verdict

form(s), or voir dire questions does not excuse the other party

or parties from their obligation to timely file these documents

with the Court in accordance with this order. In the event of

such failure, the party or parties timely submitting these

documents shall include a declaration setting forth the reason

for the lack of participation.

XIII. AUDIO/VISUAL EQUIPMENT

The parties are required to make a joint request, in writing

to the Courtroom Deputy, Stephanie Deutsch, by February 11, 2008

if they wish to reserve and arrange for orientation with all

parties on the Court's mobile audio/visual equipment for

presentation of evidence. There will be one date and time for

such orientation. Because each courtroom is not individually

equipped with the mobile audio/visual equipment, the equipment

may already be reserved for another courtroom. In such, case,

the parties will need to consult with Ms. Deutsch if they wish to

furnish their own equipment and operator with the permanent

equipment in the courtroom. 

XIV. DAUBERT/KUMHO PROCEDURE

Any motions based on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and/or Kumo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119

S. Ct. 1167 (1999) must be filed by February 8, 2008. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 15 of 16
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

16

Oppositions must be filed by February 15, 2008 and any reply must

be filed by February 22, 2008. The motions will be heard by the

Court on February 29, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. 

XV. DATE AND LENGTH OF TRIAL

A trial is scheduled for March 3, 2008. The estimated

length of trial is ten (10) days. The trial will consist of

eight (8) jurors. Counsel are to call Stephanie Deutsch,

Courtroom Deputy, at (916) 930-4207, by February 19, 2008 to

ascertain the status of the trial date.

XVI. OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER

Each party is granted five (5) court days from the date of

this Final Pretrial Order to object to any part of the Order or

to request augmentation to it. A Final Pretrial Order will be

modified only upon a showing of manifest injustice. If no

objection or modifications are made, this Order will become final

without further order of the Court and shall control the

subsequent course of the action, pursuant to Rule 16(e) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2007

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00827-MCE -JFM Document 91 Filed 09/25/07 Page 16 of 16