Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04069-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOYSE HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-4069 SI

FINAL PRETRIAL SCHEDULING

ORDER

On May 16, 2007, the Court held a final pretrial conference in the above captioned matter, which

is set for jury trial beginning May 29, 2007. All parties were represented by counsel. The following

matters were resolved:

1. Number of jurors and challenges: There shall be a jury of 9 members. Each side shall

have up to four peremptory challenges.

2. Voir dire: The court will conduct general voir dire, and counsel for each side shall have

up to 20 minutes total to question the panel. 

3. Jury instructions: Counsel have submitted various proposed jury instructions, and may

submit a further set of agreed-upon substantive instructions by May 25, 2007. The Court will conduct

an instruction conference at a later date prior to submission to the jury.

4. Trial exhibits: No later than May 25, 2007, the parties shall submit their trial exhibits,

in binders with numbered tabs separating and identifying each exhibit. The court shall be provided with

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 164 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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

three sets (for the court, the file and the witness) and each side shall provide one set for the other side.

To the extent that original documents are to be used as exhibits in the case, they should be included in

the set of exhibits for the court.

5. Timing of trial: The parties estimated that the trial should take approximately 10 days

for each side. However, the witness lists presented by the parties demonstrate significant overlap as

well as considerable cumulative witness testimony. Additionally, rulings on the motions in limine will

reduce the scope and number of witnesses. Accordingly, the Court determines that the trial should take

no more than 12 days. Based on this estimate, each side shall have 45 minutes for opening statements;

each side shall have 24 hours total for presentation of evidence, which includes direct and crossexamination and presentation of all exhibits; and each side shall have up to 60 minutes for closing

argument. In the event that the parties determine that they wish to bifurcate the punitive damage phase

of the trial, these figures will be adjusted accordingly.

6. Trial schedule: Jury trials are generally conducted Monday through Thursday; jury

trials are generally not conducted on Fridays, although deliberating juries are free to deliberate on

Fridays. The trial day runs from 8:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., with a 15 minute break at 10:00 a.m., a 30

minute break at 12:00 noon and a 15 minute break at 2:00 p.m., all times approximate. The Court is

unavailable the week of June 11, 2007.

7. Motions in limine: The parties filed motions in limine, as follows:

Plaintiff’s motions:

1) Plaintiff’s motion to exclude evidence of irrelevant and stale complaints and discipline against

plaintiff: Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of his work history at Amtrak, including evidence of

complaints made by his subordinates against him and discipline he received. The motion is DENIED,

because plaintiff’s work history is part of the context in which his eventual termination occurred.

However, given the fact that some of the events are remote in time (1995) and none of them is directly

related to the specific reasons articulated for plaintiff’s termination, the Court does not anticipate that

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 164 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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

3

much time will be spent on these issues and, if it is, the Court will entertain objections based on undue

consumption of time at trial or confusion of the record.

2) Motion to exclude expert opinion testimony by defense witnesses: This is unopposed and is

consequently GRANTED. See also defendant’s motion No. 6. 

3) Motion to exclude prior litigation by plaintiff: Plaintiff has sued prior employers for racial

discrimination, and plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence of these prior suits. The motion is GRANTED

to the extent that it asserts that the prior lawsuits are irrelevant to the issue of racial discrimination in

this case; the evidence is excluded for that purpose. However, ruling is deferred with respect to whether

such evidence would impeach plaintiff’s prior testimony. Defendant must seek Court approval prior

to mentioning the prior lawsuits or asking questions concerning them.

Defendant’s motions:

1) Motion to exclude evidence regarding alleged comparable employees: DENIED; defendant’s

objections go to the weight, not the admissibility, of this evidence.

2) Motion to bifurcate liability and damages: DENIED as to compensatory damages. The parties

may decide whether to bifurcate punitive damages and inform the Court prior to the beginning of trial.

3) Motion to exclude arguments requesting jurors to place themselves in the position of plaintiff

or defendant: GRANTED.

4) Motion to exclude reference to discovery disputes: GRANTED.

5) Motion to exclude evidence concerning plaintiff’s subsequent job applications with Amtrak:

GRANTED as to any argument that subsequent job applications were unlawfully denied. DENIED to

the extent that the information is relevant to mitigation of damages.

6) Motion to exclude expert witness testimony: Plaintiff disclosed but did not provide reports

for three of plaintiff’s treating physicians. Defendants seek to exclude their testimony for failure to

comply with Rule 26. At the hearing, plaintiff stated his intention to file supplemental briefing on this

issue. The Court will reserve ruling on the motion until after the parties have submitted supplemental

briefing. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief shall describe the nature and relevance of each physician’s

expected testimony, and shall provide authority for the assertion that an expert report was not required.

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 164 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Within 3 days of the filing of any supplemental brief by plaintiff, defendant shall file a response. 

7) Motion to exclude evidence concerning the claimed protected activities: DENIED for the

reasons articulated in the 4/30/07 Order on the motion for summary judgment; these are questions of

fact for the jury.

8) Motion to exclude evidence re Campbell case: DENIED for the reasons articulated in the

4/30/07 Order on the motion for summary judgment; these are questions of fact for the jury. However,

the parties are directed to prepare a neutral description of the Campbell case to reduce any prejudicial

consequences.

9) Motion to exclude evidence re Morgan case: DENIED for the reasons articulated in the

4/30/07 Order on the motion for summary judgment; these are questions of fact for the jury. However,

the parties are directed to prepare a neutral description of the Morgan case to reduce any prejudicial

consequences.

10) Motion to exclude evidence re racially hostile environment and harassment allegedly

experienced by others: GRANTED, except as to evidence concerning acts or statements by the

decisionmakers in plaintiff’s case (Steve Shelton, Patsy Hall, Joe Deely) or acts or statements related

to plaintiff.

11) Motion to exclude evidence of racially-related remarks by Joe Deely not made directly to

or about plaintiff: DENIED.

12) Motion to exclude evidence of other employees’ allegations of discriminatory conduct

unrelated to plaintiff’s claims: GRANTED, except as to evidence concerning acts or statements by the

decisionmakers in plaintiff’s case (Steve Shelton, Patsy Hall, Joe Deely) or acts or statements related

to plaintiff.

 13) Motion to exclude evidence pertaining to attorney client communication regarding Campbell

v. Amtrak: DENIED without prejudice to renewal at the time of trial. It appears that defendant may

have waived the attorney client privilege, as the memorandum at issue was first produced in connection

with a deposition several months ago, yet defendant never sought the return of the document and did

not file a motion with the Court. In addition, although defendant objected to plaintiff’s reliance on the

memorandum in connection with the summary judgment motion, defendant did not move to strike that

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 164 Filed 05/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

exhibit. The Court will entertain further argument on the issue of waiver at the time of trial. 

14) Motion to exclude evidence concerning individual defendants’ wrongful conduct: DENIED

as to decisionmakers in plaintiff’s case (Steve Shelton, Patsy Hall, Joe Deely).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2007

_____________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-04069-SI Document 164 Filed 05/21/07 Page 5 of 5