Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00438/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00438-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-00438 LHK

TENTATIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD KATZMAN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

a special district,

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.: 13-CV-00438 LHK

TENTATIVE ORDER REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO 

STRIKE 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Strike Testimony 

and Evidence Based on Discovery Violations, ECF No. 123; Declaration of Calvin House in 

Response to Orders of January 8, 2015, ECF No. 131; and the transcript of Janice Olsen’s trial 

testimony, ECF No. 130. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a supplement to his motion identifying 

the pages and lines of testimony Plaintiff seeks to strike and any prejudice resulting from such 

testimony by 6 p.m. on January 8, 2015, but Plaintiff has not done so. As a result, Defendant could

not meet his deadline of 7 p.m. on January 8, 2015 to file a response to Plaintiff’s supplement. In 

the interest of moving things along because our jurors arrive at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the resumption 

of trial, the Court issues the following tentative order:

(1) The Court will strike Janice Olsen’s trial testimony from page 201, line 25 through page 

202, line 8 and lines 13-25 on page 219. The Court does not recommend re-reading this testimony 

Case 5:13-cv-00438-LHK Document 133 Filed 01/08/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 13-CV-00438 LHK

TENTATIVE ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE

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

to the jury then telling the jury that such testimony is stricken and must be disregarded because 

such re-reading would only highlight the testimony. However, the Court wishes to hear from the 

parties as to how the Court should inform the jury about the stricken testimony. Perhaps the parties 

can agree to a stipulation that all testimony of Janice Olsen regarding the existence of any written 

audit procedures is stricken and must be disregarded. The parties shall advise the Court as to 

whether a reason should be provided and what exact language should be read to the jury in a joint 

filing to be filed by 9:30 p.m. on January 8, 2015.

(2) The Court will give a jury instruction that Defendant does not have any written audit 

procedures. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint statement proposing a joint or two 

competing instructions with explanations as to why each instruction is superior by 9:30 p.m. on 

January 8, 2015.

(3) The parties shall appear in Court at 8:30 a.m. for a hearing on this matter. If the parties 

stipulate to a complete resolution of this matter by 9:30 p.m. on January 8, 2015, then the Court 

will vacate this hearing, and the parties need not appear in Court until 9 a.m. on January 9, 2015 for 

the resumption of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2015 _______________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-00438-LHK Document 133 Filed 01/08/15 Page 2 of 2