Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00662-17/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Fresno
Defendant
Farshad Oreizi
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Farshad Oreizi’s Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude 

the Fresno County Civil Service Commission’s (“CSC”) Findings of Facts/Conclusion of Law 

(“FOF/COL”) regarding Plaintiff’s hearing before the CSC in January 2017. Doc. No. 73.

As drawn from the Complaint and briefings of the parties, Plaintiff worked for Defendant

County of Fresno’s (“the County”) Department of Agriculture from 1996 to March 2017.

Beginning in 2007 Plaintiff served as a supervisor in the Huron District. On October 12, 2016,

Plaintiff received a disciplinary action order stating he would be immediately terminated. Plaintiff 

requested and was granted a hearing before the CSC. On January 27, 2017, the CSC issued a 

Notice of Decision (“NOD”) which retroactively reinstated Plaintiff to his prior position, subject 

to a 240 hour suspension without pay. Defendant requested reconsideration, but the NOD was 

affirmed. Rather than reinstating Plaintiff to his prior position in Huron, Defendant assigned 

Plaintiff to work at the Department’s Fresno office. On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff returned to work

but was constructively terminated when he submitted his resignation on March 18, 2017. Plaintiff 

FARSHAD OREIZI,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-00662-AWI-EPG

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN 

LIMINE NO. 1

(Doc. No. 73)

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 8
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

thereafter filed a Government Claim with the County of Fresno, alleging discrimination and 

retaliation. In response, Defendant requested the CSC’s FOF/COL from Plaintiff’s January 2017 

hearing. On October 12, 2017, the CSC issued its FOF/COL which contained CSC’s findings 

from the testimony of several witnesses and its conclusions based on those findings.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges three causes of action under California Fair Employment and 

Housing Act (“FEHA”) § 12940, two causes of action under California Labor Code § 1102.5, and 

one cause of action under Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) § 207(a)(1).

1 With respect to 

Plaintiff’s pre-CSC hearing FEHA claims, the Court ruled that the CSC’s FOF/COL have

preclusive effect under the judicial exhaustion doctrine such that Plaintiff is now precluded from 

claiming: (1) Defendant lacked “just cause” to discipline Plaintiff, Doc. No. 70 at 15; (2) that 

Plaintiff’s affirmative defenses were meritorious; (3) that Defendant disciplined or attempted to 

terminate Plaintiff based on his national origin or submission of a human resources complaint 

regarding derogatory comments he allegedly received based on his national origin, Id.; and (4) that 

Plaintiff was subject to a hostile work environment based on his national origin. Id. With respect 

to Plaintiff’s Labor Code and FLSA claims, the Court ruled that the CSC’s FOF/COL do not 

preclude those claims. Doc. No. 70 at 5 n.2. Thus, the remaining causes of action before the 

Court concern Plaintiff’s post-CSC hearing FEHA claims, whistleblower retaliation claims under 

Labor Code § 1102.5, and unpaid overtime wage claims under FLSA. 

LEGAL STANDARD

1. Motions in limine 

“A motion in limine is a procedural mechanism to limit in advance testimony or evidence 

in a particular area.” United States v. Heller, 551 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2009). Motions in 

limine may be “made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the 

evidence is actually offered.” Stevenson v. Holland, 504 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1114 (E.D. Cal. 2020)

(citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984)). “Although the Federal Rules of 

1 Plaintiff’s Complaint also alleges causes of action for Defamation and Invasion of Privacy, but the Court dismissed 

them after Plaintiff voluntarily agreed to their dismissal. See Doc. No. 60 at 5, 7. 

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 8
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

Evidence do not explicitly authorize in limine rulings, the practice has developed pursuant to the 

district court’s inherent authority to manage the course of trials.” Id. (citing Luce, 469 U.S. at 41

n.4); see also City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 866 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th Cir. 2017) 

(explaining motions in limine “are useful tools to resolve issues which would otherwise clutter up 

the trial” (quoted source omitted)).

By resolving a motion in limine, the court may prevent the presentation of potentially 

prejudicial evidence to the jury, which also eliminates the need to try to neutralize a prejudicial 

taint after the evidence has already been presented. Stevenson, 504 F. Supp. 3d at 1114 (citing

Brodit v. Cambra, 350 F.3d 985, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2003)). Notwithstanding a motion in limine 

ruling, a court may change course at trial in the event that testimony or other evidence “bring[s] 

facts to the district court’s attention that it did not anticipate at the time of its initial ruling.” Id. at 

1114-15 (citing United States v. Bensimon, 172 F.3d 1121, 1127 (9th Cir. 1999)). 

2. Admissibility generally 

Evidence is relevant if (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it 

would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Fed. 

R. Evid. 401. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 402. “Relevancy is not an 

inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of 

evidence and a matter properly provable in the case.” Sprint/United Mgmt. Co. v. Mendelsohn, 

552 U.S. 379, 387 (2008) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401 advisory committee notes). Even if 

relevance is established, the court may exclude evidence “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. Additionally, hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they are defined as 

non-hearsay or fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Calmat Co. v. United States DOL, 364 

F.3d 1117, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004). “Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant 

while testifying at the hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the 

out-of-court declarant. Id.

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 8
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

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE

Plaintiff’s Arguments

Plaintiff seeks exclusion of the following matters: 

1. Any and all evidence or testimony regarding the FOF/COL issued on October 12, 2017 

by the CSC for the County of Fresno.

2. Any and all testimony, evidence, or argument that suggests, implies or states that the 

determinations of the CSC are binding or preclusive in the present case.

Plaintiff first argues that the FOF/COL is inadmissible hearsay because the FOF/COL 

document itself and the testimony of witnesses contained therein consist of a series of out of court 

statements not made under oath to prove a claim in the present case. Additionally, Plaintiff argues 

that the FOF/COL do not fall within the “public records” hearsay exception because Rule 

803(8)(A)(iii) applies to “investigations,” not “adjudications,” and the FOF/COL are of 

sufficiently judicial character such that the Rule does not apply. Plaintiff also asserts that the 

FOF/COL cannot alternatively be offered to prove Defendant’s reasons for relocating Plaintiff 

from Huron to Fresno because Plaintiff never alleged in the first instance that he should have been 

reinstated to Huron.

Plaintiff also contends that the FOF/COL are inadmissible lay opinion because the Civil 

Service Commission was not a percipient witness to the events in question. Additionally, Plaintiff 

argues that the FOF/COL are inadmissible expert opinion because the members of the Civil 

Service Commission are not experts but rather were appointed to act as a public oversight with no 

requirement that they have specialized knowledge or training and with no applicable system of 

principles and methods to determine creditability and other factual issues. 

Plaintiff also opines that the FOF/COL are inadmissible because they offer legal 

conclusions on credibility and other factual matters that are supposed to be decided by the trier of 

fact in the present case.

Plaintiff further argues that the FOF/COL are inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403 

because they provide marginal probative value that is substantially outweighed by a danger of 

prejudice to Plaintiff, cumulative evidence, and misleading the jury. Plaintiff further argues that 

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 8
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

rather than presenting the FOF/COL to the jury in this case, Defendant could present the same 

evidence it presented to the CSC so that the jury could form their own conclusions from the 

evidence. 

Defendant’s Arguments

Defendant argues that the FOF/COL is admissible relevant evidence that is essential to 

prove its defense that it had a neutral reason for terminating Plaintiff and thereafter reinstating

Plaintiff in Fresno rather than Huron.

With respect to Plaintiff’s hearsay argument, Defendant contends that the “public record” 

hearsay exception under Rule 803(8)(A)(iii) applies. Specifically, Defendant argues the 

FOF/COL consist of factual findings from a legally authorized investigation in a civil case and

Plaintiff failed to prove they lacked trustworthiness. Defendant also argues that the FOF/COL are

not hearsay because they are not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but rather 

to establish the basis of its decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment and thereafter reinstate

Plaintiff in Fresno. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s legal conclusion argument, Defendant argues that the 

conclusions and opinions in the FOF/COL do not make them inadmissible public records. 

According to Defendant, the FOF/COL are admissible because they are based on a factual 

investigation and satisfy Rule 803(8)(A)(iii)’s trustworthiness requirement.

With respect to Fed. R. Evid. 403, Defendant contends the FOF/COL are admissible due to

their high probative value in establishing Defendant’s reasons for terminating Plaintiff and 

reinstating him in Fresno. Additionally, Defendant argues that its defenses would be materially 

prejudiced without the FOF/COL.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Evidence 803 permits certain types of hearsay to be introduced as 

evidence. Defendant invokes 803(8)(A)(iii) to permit it to introduce the CSC’s FOF/COL. This

Rule allows into evidence “A record or statement of a public office if . . . it sets out[] in a civil 

case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized 

investigation; and [] the opponent does not show that the source of information or other 

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 5 of 8
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

6

circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(iii), (B). While the 

Ninth Circuit has “held EEOC or federal agency determinations to be per se admissible in a trial 

de novo,” Baldwin v. Rice, 144 F.R.D. 102, 104 (E.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Bradshaw v. Zoological

Soc. of San Diego, 569 F.2d 1066 (9th Cir. 1978)), courts in the Ninth Circuit have not ascribed 

such per se admissibility to civil service commission determinations, and have instead analyzed 

them for relevance, prejudice, and hearsay. See Bahra v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 2021 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 170596, *6-8 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2021) (granting plaintiff’s motion to exclude CSC’s 

FOF/COL on grounds of hearsay); Coyne v. Cty. of San Diego, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44541, 

*24-27 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2010) (denying in part plaintiff’s motion to exclude CSC’s FOF/COL on 

grounds of relevance).

For example, in Bahra, the plaintiff moved to exclude the Finding of Fact and Conclusion 

of Law drafted by a Civil Service Commission. Bahra, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170596, at *6.

The court granted the motion because “to the extent they are offered for their truth, these findings 

and conclusion constitute inadmissible hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 802.” Id. at *7. Because the 

defendants failed to identify any applicable hearsay exception or identify any other purpose for 

which the evidence would be relevant or admissible, the court precluded any reference to the 

commission’s factual findings and legal conclusions. Id.

Here, as in Bahra, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the CSC’s FOF/COL and the 

testimony of the witnesses contained therein constitute hearsay. While neither party identified, 

nor has the Court been able to locate, any Ninth Circuit case that expressly reviewed the issue of 

whether a CSC’s FOF/COL fall within the “public records” hearsay exception, the Court need not 

analyze this issue at this time because the Court will exclude the CSC’s FOF/COL on the basis of 

Fed. R. Evid. 403.

Some of the CSC’s determinations directly bear on Plaintiff’s causes of action and pose 

substantial risks of confusing the issues and misleading the jury. For example, Conclusion No. 13

states “The Commission finds and concludes that Appellant’s various defenses alleging, in 

essence, retaliation and cover up, are all discredited. Appellant provided no credible evidence of 

retaliation by the County or its employees against Appellants.” Doc. No. 73 at 46. Based on this 

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 6 of 8
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

7

Conclusion and as stated above, the Court previously ruled that Plaintiff is precluded from 

claiming that he had meritorious affirmative defenses with respect to his pre-CSC hearing FEHA

claims. Doc. No. 70 at 15. However, the Court also ruled that this preclusion does not affect

Plaintiff’s post-CSC hearing FEHA claims or whistleblower retaliation claims under Labor Code § 

1102.5. Id. at 5 n.2. Given that the wording of Conclusion No. 13 appears to suggest that “all” of 

Plaintiff’s “various defenses” including “retaliation” are “discredited,” the jury would likely give 

it undue weight and/or get confused as to whether it applies to Plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation 

claims or post-CSC hearing discrimination claims. The risk of the jury giving the CSC’s 

FOF/COL undue weight is especially apparent given the specific judicial capacity traits exhibited 

by the Fresno County CSC, which this Court described at length in its prior summary judgment 

order. See Doc. No. 70 at 6-13; see also Cardinal v. Buchnoff, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86523, *8 

(S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) (stating that under Rule 403, courts are “generally hesitant to admit 

other judicial opinions or statements into evidence, even when relevant, because ‘[j]udicial 

findings of fact present a rare case where, by virtue of their having been made by a judge, they 

would likely be given undue weight by the jury, thus creating a serious danger of unfair 

prejudice’” (citing Carter v. Burch, 34 F.3d 257, 265 (4th Cir. 1994) and United States v. Sine, 

493 F.3d 1021, 1034 (9th Cir. 2007)). Thus, a serious danger of unfair prejudice to Plaintiff 

would result if the jury was presented with the CSC’s FOF/COL regarding Plaintiff’s affirmative 

defenses.

Nevertheless, the Court will not exclude the CSC’s FOF/COL in their entirety. The Court 

will allow introduction of pages 1 and 2 of the FOF/COL document for Defendant to use in 

support of its argument that it had legitimate, independent reasons for terminating Plaintiff and 

reinstating him in Fresno. The parties may also use these pages to show that the CSC lowered 

Plaintiff’s discipline from termination to suspension for 240 hours without pay. Additionally, the 

Court will allow introduction of the section on page 25 that states Plaintiff’s testimony. The other

sections stating the testimony of other witnesses will be excluded. Witnesses on both sides will 

testify at trial as to the events in question, and that testimony renders the testimonies in the 

FOF/COL unnecessarily cumulative.

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 7 of 8
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

8

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set forth above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2022 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00662-JLT-EPG Document 76 Filed 08/09/22 Page 8 of 8