Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01824-24/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

1

*E-FILED 1/22/08*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GREGORY NEAL GRIMES, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

Defendant. /

NO. C 05-01824 RS

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO

PURSUE “AFTER-ACQUIRED

EVIDENCE” AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE 

 

Plaintiff Gregory Grimes brought this action alleging that he was unlawfully terminated by

his employer, defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). Partial summary judgment has already

been granted in favor of UPS on Grimes’s claims that his termination was discriminatory, that UPS

failed to rehire him for discriminatory reasons, and on various other claims. This action is

proceeding to trial based on Grimes’s claims that UPS failed to engage in the interactive process

with him and failed reasonably to accommodate his disability.

 When UPS filed its answer in this action it alleged, among other affirmative defenses, that

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 322 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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 1

 See McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) 

2

Grimes’s recovery is barred, in whole or in part, by the “after-acquired evidence doctrine.”1

 In

response to interrogatories seeking the factual basis of affirmative defenses, UPS voluntarily

withdrew this particular affirmative defense (along with certain others, not in dispute). UPS

conditioned its withdrawal of the defense on a statement that it reserved the right to reassert it, “if

further discovery reveals new evidence that would support [the defense].”

At the time UPS withdrew the defense, it had already taken the deposition of Grimes wherein

he testified that he had attended certain college level classes but that he had not obtained any degree. 

As of that time UPS also had in its possession at least three copies of Grimes’ employment

application that apparently represents Grimes does hold a college degree. One copy was produced

by Grimes to UPS as part of his initial disclosures in this action. A second copy was produced in

discovery by UPS to Grimes. A third copy was marked as an exhibit during the deposition of UPS

employee Cynthia Flaherty.

What UPS had not done as of the time it withdrew the defense was to “connect the dots” to

recognize the discrepancy between Grimes’s testimony and the employment application. Indeed,

UPS apparently was unaware that it even had possession of any copy of the employment application,

until counsel came across the Flaherty deposition exhibit during the course of trial preparation.

UPS’s belated recognition of the import of evidence that was in its possession at the time it

withdrew the defense is insufficient to permit it to reassert the defense now. UPS makes a valid

point that because the after-acquired evidence doctrine cuts off damages only as of the date of

discovery, the prejudice of a delayed discovery is minimized to a certain extent. That self-limiting

feature of the doctrine, however, does little to address the prejudice Grimes has suffered here to his

ability to show that the doctrine should not be applied against him at all. For example, for the

doctrine to apply, the employer, “must first establish that the wrongdoing was of such severity that

the employee in fact would have been terminated on those grounds alone if the employer had known

of it at the time of the discharge. McKennon, 513 U.S. at 362- 363. Here, in reliance on UPS’s

interrogatory responses, Grimes did no discovery on this point.

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 322 Filed 01/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER

C 05-01824 RS

3

The Court has given careful consideration as to whether the prejudice could be cured or

sufficiently minimized by permitting limited additional discovery at this juncture, but concludes that

such an approach is not practicable under all the circumstances. Accordingly, UPS’s motion for

leave to reassert the defense and to submit jury instructions and a revised special verdict to address

the issue is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2008 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 322 Filed 01/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER

C 05-01824 RS

4

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO:

Darci Elaine Burrell courtmail@boxerlaw.com

Claudia Center ccenter@las-elc.org, lbossing@las-elc.org, lkapros@las-elc.org

Kathryn Burkett Dickson kbdickson@dicksonross.com, courtmail@boxerlaw.com,

pwach@dicksonross.com

Thomas E. Geidt tomgeidt@paulhastings.com, jeffsmith@paulhastings.com

E. Jeffrey Grube , Esq jeffgrube@paulhastings.com, patricialawson@paulhastings.com

Kerri N. Harper kerriharper@paulhastings.com, jeffsmith@paulhastings.com

Jean K Hyams courtmail@boxerlaw.com

Leslie Fran Levy courtmail@boxerlaw.com

Sana Swe sanaswe@paulhastings.com, daliaromhill@sbcglobal.net

Maurice Kirby Collette Wilcox kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com, janetgogna@paulhastings.com

Julie Anne Wilkinson JulieWilkinson@paulhastings.com, helendevol@paulhastings.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 1/22/08 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Chambers 

Case 5:05-cv-01824-RS Document 322 Filed 01/22/08 Page 4 of 4