Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-03791-26/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 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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 SERVICES, INC. and

LANGUAGE LINE, LLC,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

Re: Dkt. Nos. 255, 256, 257, 258

Plaintiff Nathalie Thuy Van (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against her alleged employers

Defendants Language Line Services, Inc. and Language Line, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). 

A jury trial is scheduled to begin July 25, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. In the interest of expeditiously 

providing the parties with rulings that may assist their trial preparation, this Order addresses 

Defendants’ motions in limine nos. 1, 2 (as to the Campagna case and Department of Labor 

audit)1, 3, and 4. ECF Nos. 255–58. Other trial management issues will be addressed at the 

pretrial conference. In ruling on these motions in limine, the Court considered the submissions of 

the parties, the record in this case, and the relevant law, and balanced the factors set forth in

 

1

The Court will address the admissibility of Plaintiff’s Superior Court action at the pretrial 

conference.

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 12
2

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Motions in limine are procedural devices to obtain an early and preliminary ruling on the 

admissibility of evidence.” BNSF Ry. Co. v. Quad City Testing Lab., Inc., 2010 WL 4337827, *1 

(D. Mont. Oct. 26, 2010). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 402, only relevant evidence is 

admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Conversely, “[i]rrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Id.

Relevant evidence means evidence having “any tendency” to make the existence of any “fact 

[that] is of consequence” to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it

would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded 

“if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: 

unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or 

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

“Denial of a motion in limine does not necessarily mean that all evidence contemplated by 

the motion will be admitted to [sic] trial. Denial merely means that without the context of trial, 

the court is unable to determine whether the evidence in question should be excluded.” 

McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 995 F. Supp. 2d 1164, 1168 (D. Nev. 2014). A district 

court’s evidentiary rulings, including its rulings on motions in limine, are “reviewed for an abuse 

of discretion and should not be reversed absent some prejudice.” E.E.O.C. v. Pape Lift, Inc., 115 

F.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1997). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff’s Procedural Objections to Defendants’ Motions in Limine

Plaintiff argues that all of Defendants’ motions in limine should be denied because (1) the 

Court limited the parties to three motions in limine each and Defendants submitted four; and (2) 

Defendants did not submit a proposed order or supporting declaration for each motion in limine in 

violation of the Court’s Civil Local Rules. See ECF Nos. 260, 262, 265, 268. 

The Court disagrees. The Court’s order of May 10, 2016 provided that “[e]ach side may 

file up to four motions in limine.” ECF No. 243. Thus, Defendants properly filed four motions in 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 12
3

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

limine in accordance with the Court’s May 10, 2016 order. 

In addition, the Civil Local Rules did not require Defendants to submit either a proposed 

order or a declaration with each motion in limine. Civil Local Rule 7-2(c) provides that “[u]nless 

excused by the Judge . . . each motion must be accompanied by a proposed order.” Neither the 

Court’s May 10, 2016 order nor the Court’s standing order on jury trials requires that a proposed 

order be submitted with a motion in limine. Moreover, Civil Local Rules 7-2(d) and 7-5 only 

require the submission of supporting declarations when necessary to support factual contentions in 

the motions. Defendants do not make factual contentions in their motions in limine and thus 

submission of supporting declarations was not required by the Civil Local Rules. 

Consequently, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s arguments that Defendants’ motions in limine 

are procedurally improper. The Court thus addresses the merits of Defendants’ motions in limine. 

B. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1: Exclusion of Evidence Regarding Customer 

Information

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 seeks to exclude any evidence at trial regarding 

“Customer Information,” which Defendants define as (1) the identities of Defendants’ customers; 

(2) rates billed to clients (“billing rates”); (3) the lengths of calls billed to clients (“billed time”); 

(4) the amounts billed to clients (“billed amounts”); and (5) information that would disclose a 

patient or the subject matter of a call. ECF No. 255. Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to 

exclude certain customer billing invoices and to redact Customer Information from any document 

or exhibit used at trial. Defendants argue that this information is both confidential and irrelevant 

to Plaintiff’s claims. Effectively, Defendants seek to seal information in Plaintiff’s proposed trial 

exhibits. 

The Court acknowledges that some of the Customer Information is sealable. Trial exhibits 

may be sealed when there are “compelling reasons.” See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 566, 

569 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to trial exhibits); Ctr. for Auto Safety 

v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that “compelling reasons” applies 

when the documents sought to be sealed are “more than tangentially related to the underlying 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 12
4

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

cause of action”). Compelling reasons exist when the information sought to be sealed releases

trade secrets or may be used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 

competitive standing.” In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569–70; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). In 

addition, compelling reasons exist to protect confidential financial and medical records. See Foltz 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Hendon v. 

Baroya, 2012 WL 6087535, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012) (sealing medical information protected 

from disclosure by the Health Insurance Protability and Accountability Act of 1996). 

In the instant case, the identities of Defendants’ clients, billing rates, billing amounts, and 

the subject matter of calls may be confidential commercial information, the publication of which 

may harm Defendants’ competitive standing. In addition, Defendants assert that the subject matter 

of certain calls involve confidential third party financial and medical information, including a 

medical patient’s personal identifying information and medical diagnosis and treatment 

information. See ECF No. 255 at 1. This type of information is sealable. 

In addition, the Court finds that this information has minimal probative value to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff asserts that the amount Defendants bill to clients is relevant because “the billing rates and 

evidence reveal the big profit that Defendants make when Defendants did not pay Plaintiff for the 

time she provides interpreting services to Defendants’ customers while Defendants charge its 

customers to the minutes of the call for which Plaintiff provides interpreting services.” ECF No. 

260 at 2–3. However, Defendants’ profits do not shed light on Plaintiff’s claims that will be tried 

to the jury, that is, whether Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for overtime, forced Plaintiff 

to skip meal and rest periods, or provided Plaintiff with inaccurate wage statements. Thus, 

Plaintiff offers no connection between the billing rates—or the other Customer Information—and 

the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the Court also would exclude the identities of 

Defendants’ clients, billing rates, billing amounts, and the subject matter of calls as irrelevant and 

unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 403. 

However, the Court notes that Defendants did not move to seal the duration of calls billed 

to Defendants’ customers, also known as billed time, in connection with a motion for sanctions 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 12
5

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

filed by Plaintiff on July 27, 2015. See ECF No. 72 (Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions); ECF No. 

117 (Defendants’ Motion to Seal); ECF No. 120-1 (Defendants’ Proposed Redactions). 

Documents showing billed time were then publicly filed. ECF No. 132. Because Defendants did 

not seek to seal billed time earlier in the litigation, the Court concludes that this information is not 

confidential and not sealable. 

In sum, Plaintiff need not redact billed time, but Plaintiff must redact the identities of 

Defendants’ clients, billing rates, billing amounts, and the subject matter of calls from Plaintiff’s 

trial exhibits. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 except for 

billed time.

C. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2: Exclude Reference to Prior Cases

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 seeks to exclude reference to three prior cases: (1) 

Campagna v. Language Line Services, Inc., a class action involving claims of failure to reimburse 

business expenses; (2) an audit of Defendants performed by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) 

regarding failure to pay the prevailing wage rate and certain levels of health and welfare benefits; 

and (3) Plaintiff’s Santa Clara County Superior Court case, which was based on the same 

allegations as the instant case. ECF No. 256. Defendants contend that all three prior matters are 

irrelevant under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of 

Evidence 403, and improper “bad acts” evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404.

1. Campagna Case and DOL Audit

The Court agrees that Campagna and the DOL audit are irrelevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401–

402. Neither involved the claims in the instant case that will be tried to the jury, i.e., Defendants’ 

failure to pay overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, or provide accurate wage statements. 

Plaintiff asserts that Campagna is relevant because Plaintiff opted out of the class action 

settlement in that case, see ECF No. 262, but Defendants do not contend that the Campagna 

settlement bars Plaintiff’s claims. 

In addition, Plaintiff’s introduction of evidence of Campagna and the DOL audit is likely 

to lead to “mini-trials” about the propriety of the underlying conduct in Campagna, the meaning 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 12
6

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

of the settlement agreement in Campagna, and the propriety of the conduct investigated in the 

DOL audit. See United States v. Jones, 123 F. App’x 773, 775 (9th Cir. 2005) (noting the 

potential “danger of confusing the issues and wasting time with mini-trials regarding the events 

underlying” different events than those alleged in the case). These “mini-trials” pose the risk of 

unfair prejudice, are likely to confuse the issues, mislead the jury, and waste time. See Fed. R. 

Evid. 403. The Court finds that any minimal probative value of Campagna or the DOL audit is 

substantially outweighed by these risks. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 

preclude reference to Campagna and the DOL audit. 

2. Superior Court Case

The Court will address the admissibility of Plaintiff’s Superior Court case at the pretrial 

conference.

D. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3: Exclude Reference to Discovery Disputes and 

Accusations of Unethical Behavior

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 seeks to exclude any evidence regarding discovery 

disputes, discovery negotiations, claims of privilege, use of the term “forged” with respect to the 

documents produced in discovery, and alleged unethical behavior by counsel for Defendants. ECF 

No. 257. Defendants argue that all of this evidence should be excluded under Federal Rules of 

Evidence 401, 402, and 403 as irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims, unfairly prejudicial, a waste of time, 

and likely to confuse the jury. 

The Court agrees that this evidence is irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims at trial. See Fed. R. 

Evid. 401–02; Mformation Techs., Inc. v. Research in Motion Ltd., 2012 WL 2339762, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. June 7, 2012) (excluding “all evidence of prior pretrial discovery disputes” as irrelevant). 

Discovery in this case was contentious and involved multiple orders of the Court regarding 

protective orders, the discovery schedule, and the production of evidence. See ECF Nos. 159, 160, 

163, 167, 168, 188, 193, 203, 208. Plaintiff argues that certain discovery actions of Defendants 

and Defendants’ counsel reflect an abuse of the judicial process and that Plaintiff plans to report 

Defendants’ counsel to the California state bar. See ECF No. 265. However, the disputes 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 12
7

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

identified by Plaintiff do not bear on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims for unpaid overtime 

compensation, meal and rest period violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Thus, the disputes 

are not relevant. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 (noting that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to 

make a fact,” which “is of consequence in determining the action,” either “more or less 

probable”).

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to show the relevance of the allegedly “forged” pay statements 

and work schedules produced by Defendants in discovery. At summary judgment, Plaintiff 

provided both the “forged” copies of Plaintiff’s pay statements and work schedules as well as 

copies that Plaintiff asserted were accurate. See ECF No. 212. However, Plaintiff identified no 

discrepancies between the “forged” and “accurate” copies of the documents that were relevant to 

Plaintiff’s claims. At summary judgment, the Court independently reviewed these documents and 

identified no discrepancies relevant to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. See ECF No. 244 at 18 n.3, 

2 n.4. In opposition to Defendants’ motion in limine, Plaintiff reiterates that the documents are 

“forged” but points only to an error in listing Plaintiff’s year-to-date gross pay. ECF No. 265 at 3. 

Plaintiff points to no error in the number of hours, the pay per hour, or the total pay per pay period 

listed in the pay statements. Plaintiff fails to explain how year-to-date gross pay impacts the 

merits of any of Plaintiff’s claims, and thus how the “forged” pay statements and work schedules 

are relevant to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. 

Furthermore, the Court concludes that evidence regarding discovery disputes, discovery 

negotiations, claims of privilege, use of the term “forged” with respect to the documents produced 

in discovery, and alleged unethical behavior by counsel for Defendants must be excluded under 

Federal Rule of Evidence 403. The risk of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the 

jury, and wasting time substantially outweighs any minimal to non-existent probative value of this 

evidence. The risk of unfair prejudice is particularly high here because this Court has already 

denied two meritless motions for sanctions filed by Plaintiff against Defendants. ECF Nos. 59, 

106. The Court specifically noted that the Court “do[es] not find any evidence that the Defendant 

has perpetrated any fraud upon this Court and do[es] not find any evidence that the Defendant has 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 12
8

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

otherwise acted improperly.” ECF No. 125 (transcript of hearing). Thus, in addition to lacking 

probative value, the Court is not convinced that Plaintiff’s allegations of unethical conduct have 

any merit. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine to 

exclude evidence of discovery disputes, discovery negotiations, claims of privilege, use of the 

term “forged” with respect to the documents produced in discovery, and alleged unethical 

behavior by counsel for Defendants. See Fed. R. Evid. 401–403.

E. Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4: Exclude Evidence of Claims Resolved at 

Summary Judgment

Defendants’ motion in limine no. 4 requests exclusion of four categories of evidence. 

First, Defendants seek to exclude evidence regarding claims dismissed pursuant to the Court’s 

rulings at summary judgment. ECF No. 258. Second, Defendants’ motion seeks to exclude any 

evidence of damages outside of the applicable statutes of limitations, including: (1) Plaintiff’s 

alleged damages regarding unpaid wages, overtime, meal, and rest periods prior to August 21, 

2010, which is the furthest back any statute of limitations reaches on Plaintiff’s claims; (2) 

Plaintiff’s home foreclosure, which occurred in 2008; (3) Plaintiff’s negative credit rating and 

credit card debt; and (4) Plaintiff’s requests for payroll and time records. Third, Defendants ask 

for exclusion of any evidence regarding the settlement/mediation sessions in this case. Fourth, 

Defendants ask to exclude evidence of the parties’ filing of motions for summary judgment and 

exclude the Court’s rulings on these motions.

As to the first category of evidence, the Court agrees with Defendants that evidence of 

claims resolved at summary judgment in Defendants’ favor is irrelevant. At summary judgment, 

the Court granted summary judgment in Defendants’ favor on four claims: (1) breach of contract; 

(2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) retaliation; and (4) failure to permit timely 

inspection of wage statements. ECF No. 244. Evidence offered only in support of one of these 

four claims is irrelevant to the merits of Plaintiff’s remaining claims. See Brown v. Kavanaugh, 

2013 WL 1819796, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2013) (“Matters pled and dismissed in this case are 

not relevant to Plaintiff’s remaining claims.”). 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 12
9

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

For example, at summary judgment Plaintiff offered evidence that Frank Perry (“Perry”), 

Defendants’ Vice President of Human Resources, described Plaintiff as a “cuckoo” to a process 

server when served with a complaint in Plaintiff’s state court case. Plaintiff offered this evidence 

only in support of Plaintiff’s retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. 

ECF No. 211 at 12, 14; ECF No. 221 at 11, 13; ECF No. 227 at 6–7. In opposition to Defendants’ 

motion in limine, Plaintiff does not explain how this evidence impacts the merits of Plaintiff’s 

overtime, meal and rest period, or wage statement claims, and the Court can not see how Perry’s 

comment is relevant to the claims that Plaintiff will assert at trial. See Fed. R. Evid. 401 (noting 

evidence is relevant only if it has a tendency to impact a fact that is “of consequence in 

determining the action.”). Further, because Perry’s comment occurred in the context of Plaintiff’s 

Superior Court case, evidence of Perry’s comment will necessitate discussion of Plaintiff’s 

Superior Court case and thus confuse the issues and waste time. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

Accordingly, Perry’s comment is excluded pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 

403. 

Similarly, the Court excludes the following: the unexplained change in Plaintiff’s 

department code; the change in the reporting of Plaintiff’s performance evaluation; the 1997 

AT&T offer letter; the 1999 Asset Purchase Agreement; Plaintiff’s requests to inspect Plaintiff’s 

time records and Defendants’ response; and evidence regarding Plaintiff’s assertions that, pursuant 

to Plaintiff’s employment contract with Defendants, Plaintiff is owed holiday pay, floating holiday 

pay, night differential pay, annual raises, vacation pay, pay for being scheduled less than 40 hours 

a week, pay for 4 excused days, and 401k contributions. This evidence has been offered solely 

with respect to claims that were resolved at summary judgment, and are not relevant to the claims 

that Plaintiff will present at trial. In addition, introduction of this evidence will be unfairly 

prejudicial, confuse the issues, and mislead the jury regarding the validity of claims not presented 

at trial. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine to the extent that the motion 

seeks to exclude evidence related solely to Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract, intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, and failure to permit inspection of records. See Fed. R. 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 12
10

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

Evid. 401–403. 

As to the second category of evidence, the Court agrees that Plaintiff may not seek 

damages incurred prior to the statute of limitations period. Such damages are barred by the 

statutes of limitations, as discussed in the Court’s summary judgment order. See ECF No. 244. 

Plaintiff counters that both the foreclosure on Plaintiff’s home and Plaintiff’s credit card debt may 

be recovered as liquidated damages under the FLSA. ECF No. 268. Plaintiff offers no other basis 

for the recovery of these damages. However, “successful FLSA plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated 

damages in the amount of the unpaid overtime compensation (i.e. double damages).” Haro v. City 

of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th Cir. 2014); see also 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). In other words, 

liquidated damages are an amount equal to unpaid wages, not any damages that are foreseeable 

from the alleged misconduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not seek to recover damages for 

Plaintiff’s home foreclosure or Plaintiff’s credit card debt as liquidated damages under the FLSA. 

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion in limine to the extent that it precludes Plaintiff from 

seeking damages outside the applicable limitations periods, and precludes Plaintiff from 

recovering damages for Plaintiff’s home foreclosure and credit card debt. 

That said, the Court does not find that all evidence of Defendants’ behavior prior to the 

statute of limitations is irrelevant. For example, evidence that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff 

overtime worked before the statute of limitations may be relevant to show that Defendants knew 

or should have known that Plaintiff was working uncompensated overtime, or that Defendants’ 

violation of the FLSA was willful. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion in limine is DENIED to the 

extent that the motion seeks to prevent Plaintiff from presenting evidence of all activity occurring 

before the applicable limitations periods. 

Third, Defendants seek to preclude evidence regarding the mediation in this case. Federal 

Rule of Evidence 408 provides that 

Evidence of the following is not admissible—on behalf of any party—either to 

prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a 

prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

(1) furnishing, promising, or offering—or accepting, promising to accept, or 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 12
11

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

offering to accept—a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to 

compromise the claim; and

(2) conduct or a statement made during compromise negotiations about the claim--

except when offered in a criminal case and when the negotiations related to a claim 

by a public office in the exercise of its regulatory, investigative, or enforcement 

authority.

Fed. R. Evid. 408. This rule requires exclusion of evidence regarding any discussion of settlement 

offers or agreements that took place at the mediation. For example, Plaintiff may not introduce 

evidence from the deposition of Frank Perry, Defendants’ Vice President of Human Resources, 

regarding the specifics of settlement agreements discussed at the mediation. However, the Court 

notes that Rule 408 does not mean that all evidence presented to the mediator is excluded, as 

Plaintiff fears. ECF No. 268 at 2–3. For example, at trial Plaintiff may present evidence of 

Defendants’ failure to pay overtime worked, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and failure to 

provide accurate wage statements, even if Plaintiff presented that evidence to the mediator. Thus, 

other than evidence of Plaintiff’s claims at trial, Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude evidence 

of settlement discussions at the parties’ mediation is GRANTED.

Lastly, Defendants seek to exclude “any reference to the fact that the parties brought 

motions for summary judgment prior to trial or the Court’s rulings on those motions.” ECF No. 

258 at 2. Plaintiff does not specifically oppose this request. See ECF No. 268. However, the 

Court is mindful that the Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s claim 

for meal and rest period violations. Specifically, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff 

on liability for 136 meal and rest period violations, but concluded that a disputed issue of material 

fact remained as to damages for the 136 violations. These damages are an issue at trial, and thus 

there must be some reference to the Court’s liability ruling on Plaintiff’s meal and rest period 

claim. However, any other reference to the motions for summary judgment and their rulings is 

irrelevant to any triable issues. See Fed. R. Evid. 401–03. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 

Defendants’ motion in limine to the extent that it seeks to preclude reference to the Court’s ruling 

on Plaintiff’s meal and rest period claim. In all other respects, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

motion in limine to exclude reference to the fact that the parties brought motions for summary 

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 12
12

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE 1, 2 (IN PART), 3, AND 4

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

judgment and to exclude the Court’s rulings on those motions. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court rules on Defendants’ motions in limine as follows:

 Defendants’ motion in limine no. 1 is GRANTED.

 Defendants’ motion in limine no. 2 as to the Campagna case and Department of 

Labor audit is GRANTED.

 Defendants’ motion in limine no. 3 is GRANTED.

 Defendants’ motions in limine no. 4 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-03791-LHK Document 293 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 12