Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06509/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06509-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Frazier
Plaintiff
Steve Johnson
Defendant
UPS
Defendant

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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-1- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

E. JEFFREY GRUBE (SB# 167324) 

SANA SWE (SB# 173024) 

ANNETTE M. RITTMULLER (SB# 211882) 

PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 

55 Second Street 

Twenty-Fourth Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 

Telephone: (415) 856-7000 

Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS FRAZIER, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., JOHN 

ACHA, STEVE JOHNSON, and DOES 1 

through 20, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. CIV-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND 

DENYING IN PART, MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE 

Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

The parties’ Motions In Limine came on for hearing before this Court. Counsel for 

parties appeared and argued before this Court. The Court, having read and considered the motion 

and all papers and pleadings on file herein, and the oral argument of counsel, hereby Orders: 

Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine

(1) Evidence Regarding Prior Discipline. Withdrawn. The issue was resolved 

by stipulation. The parties submitted the Stipulated Proposed Order Regarding Evidence Of 

Discipline And Alleged Discrimination Prior to March 30, 2001 on August 10, 2005. The motion 

is subsumed by the stipulated order. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 1 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-2- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(2) Witness Sequestration and Gag Order. Granted in part. Witnesses are 

ordered not to discuss their testimony with each other. Attorneys are prohibited from coaching or 

attempting to educate or influence any witness by referring to the testimony of another witness 

during the pendency of the trial. The Court orders the witnesses sequestered until there is no 

possibility of their recall to the courtroom. At that time, they may enter the courtroom. Denied in 

part. Defendant may have a designated company representative present during the trial even 

though he is a witness in the case. Defendant has designated Steve Johnson as the company 

representative. 

(3) Signing of Deposition Transcripts by Witnesses. Denied. The Court will 

not require witnesses to sign deposition transcripts or deem that they have been signed. The 

Court will allow the parties to refer to the portion of the testimony where the witness was duly 

sworn and the informed that the testimony will be given under oath. 

(4) Use of Demonstrative Exhibits. Granted. The Court has already ruled that 

the parties will not present any exhibits to the jury until after they have been marked, shared with 

the other side, and if an objection is raised, ruled on by the Court. If there is no objection, the 

Court need not review the demonstrative exhibit. 

(5) Personnel Records of other Employees. Granted based on the Court’s 

understanding that the parties will follow the law, i.e., Defendant will continue to protect the 

privacy of employee records. 

(6) Impeachment of Witness with Information Learned from Interviews. 

Denied. The Court will rule on objections as they are raised during trial. 

(7) Evidence of Workers’ Compensation and Unemployment Insurance 

Payments. Granted. The issue will not be raised before the jury. However, if Defendant can 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 2 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-3- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

show that any payment has been made to compensate for any damage recovered in this lawsuit, 

the Court will hear argument regarding offset if the affirmative defense was asserted. The parties 

are prohibited from referencing the issue of offset or workers’ compensation and unemployment 

insurance recovery in the presence of the jury. Similarly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 

403, the motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s purported admission that he was terminated because he 

filed a 132a claim. The parties are prohibited from referencing this admission in the presence of 

the jury. 

(8) Alternative Sources of Emotional Distress. Withdrawn. 

(9) Reference to Dismissed Claims Against Individual Defendants. Granted

based on the parties’ agreement. 

(10) Reference to Dismissed or Abandoned Claims. Granted based on the 

parties’ agreement. 

(11) Evidence of Plaintiff’s Character. Granted in part. Defendant is precluded 

from gratuitous disparaging remarks or evidence suggesting that Plaintiff is an angry man or a 

trouble maker. However, the parties are entitled to present evidence of the factual background 

regarding the disciplinary incidents identified in the stipulation between the parties as well as 

evidence of the factual background and reasons for Plaintiff’s disciplinary letters on March 30, 

2001 and April 17, 2001. 

(12) Defendant’s Defenses. Granted in part as amplified by the parties’ 

stipulation. Affirmative defenses that were pled and included in the pretrial order that are issues 

for the jury to decide, such as mitigation, will go to the jury if supported by the evidence. The 

Court will instruct the jury regarding the law to be applied. Issues of law will be decided by the 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 3 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-4- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Court. The parties have agreed and the Court agrees that Defendant may raise the affirmative 

defenses in a Rule 50 motion after the trial or on appeal. 

(13) Self-Serving Writings. Withdrawn. 

(14) Post-Verdict Remedies. Granted based on the agreement of the parties. 

(15) Hearing Regarding the Qualifications of Defendant’s Expert. Denied

without prejudice. The Court will rule on objections at trial. 

(16) Expert Testimony Regarding Ultimate Issues. Denied without prejudice. 

Expert witnesses may testify regarding their opinion on ultimate issues. However, the parties are 

precluded from introducing expert opinions or lay opinions in the form of legal conclusions. 

(17) Advice of Counsel Defense. Granted based on non-opposition. 

(18) Other Discrimination Investigations. Withdrawn. 

(19) “Character” Evidence Regarding James Wood, John Acha, and Steve 

Johnson. Granted without prejudice based on representation that evidence of good character will 

be offered only in rebuttal. If Plaintiff raises the issue, Defendant may respond. 

(20) Workers’ Compensation File. Granted as referenced in ruling regarding 

Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 7. 

(21) Witness Statements Obtained During Investigation. Granted based on 

Defendant’s representation that it does not intend to use any written statement that has not been 

disclosed. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 4 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-5- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(22) Court’s Ruling On Summary Judgment. Granted based on the parties’ 

agreement, as with Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine No. 10. 

(23) Plaintiff’s Failure to Utilize Defendant’s Complaint Procedures. Granted 

in part. Defendant may rely upon, refer to, and present evidence regarding an affirmative defense 

that was pled and included in the pretrial order. To the extent an affirmative defense was not pled 

or included in the pretrial order, Defendant may not rely upon or present evidence regarding that 

defense. 

(24) Exclusion of Non-Designated Expert Testimony. Plaintiff argued that the 

motion sought to exclude non-designated experts regarding human resources or collective 

bargaining issues. Granted in part to the extent that the parties are precluded from introducing 

expert opinions or lay opinions in the form of legal conclusions. 

(25) Unplead defenses. Granted. Defendant may not reference or present 

evidence regarding unplead defenses. In addition, Plaintiff may not reference or present evidence 

regarding unplead claims. 

(26) Union Grievance Proceeding As Sole And Exclusive Remedy. Granted. 

Defendant is precluded from arguing that Plaintiff’s claim is barred because the Union and 

Defendant upheld the discharge. The Court already ruled on this issue on summary judgment. 

(27) Evidence of “Good Cause” for Plaintiff’s Termination. Granted in part. 

Defendant is precluded from using the term of art “good cause.” Denied in part. Defendant may 

argue and introduce evidence regarding the reason for the discharge letters and the manner in 

which the Company handled them. In addition, Defendant may introduce the collective 

bargaining agreement, identify the relevant sections, and introduce evidence that the Company 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 5 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-6- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

followed the terms of the agreement. Defendant may identify a section which uses the term 

“good cause”, but may not testify or make arguments to the jury using that term of art. 

(28) Foundational Hearing Regarding Defendant’s Investigation of Plaintiff’s 

Alleged Complaints of Discrimination. Withdrawn. 

(29) UPS’s Customs, Practices, and Policies. Withdrawn. 

(30) Plaintiff’s Work Habits. Granted. 

(31) “Meeting Minutes” of Management Relating to Plaintiff’s Termination. 

Withdrawn. 

(32) Parol Evidence. Denied. The Court will rule on objections as they are 

raised. 

(33) Labor Code § 132a Petition and Plaintiff’s Unemployment Insurance Claim 

Form. Granted. 

(34) Plaintiff’s Marital Status and Child Support Obligations. Granted in part 

without prejudice. Defendant is precluded from using the words "divorce" and "child support." 

Denied in part. Defendant is entitled to cross-examine regarding additional stressors during the 

relevant time period. Defendant may inquire whether Plaintiff amicably parted with his ex-wife 

and whether the parting caused him stress. If Defendant has a good faith basis based on a prior 

answer in deposition, the Court will consider whether Defendant may inquire further if Plaintiff 

denies other stressors. Defendant could inquire regarding the extent of the stress, how severe it 

was, whether it was disabling, and whether Plaintiff missed work because of it. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 6 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-7- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(35) Plaintiff’s Driving Record. Granted. 

(36) Letter from Ritchie Trucking Service. Granted. 

(37) Working Discharges. Withdrawn. The issue was resolved by stipulation. 

The parties submitted the Stipulated Proposed Order Regarding Evidence Of Discipline And 

Alleged Discrimination Prior to March 30, 2001 on August 10, 2005. The motion is subsumed by 

the stipulated order. 

(38) Plaintiff’s Refusal to Participate in the Grievance Procedure. Denied. 

(39) Joint Union-Company Panel Arguments. Withdrawn. 

(40) Plaintiff’s Use of Profanity in the Workplace. Granted in part. Denied in 

part. The parties may refer to evidence as agreed upon in the Stipulated Proposed Order 

Regarding Evidence Of Discipline And Alleged Discrimination Prior to March 30, 2001 on 

August 10, 2005. 

(41) Wood’s Lack of Knowledge of Plaintiff’s Complaints. Denied. 

(42) Defendant’s Expert Testimony Regarding Mitigation. Denied without 

prejudice. The Court will rule on objections at trial. 

(43) Plaintiff’s Accusation of Wood Being A Bigot or Racist. Denied. The 

Court will rule on objections. However, the parties may not raise the issue in opening statements. 

(44) Disciplinary Records Since 2000. Withdrawn. The issue was resolved by 

stipulation. The parties submitted the Stipulated Proposed Order Regarding Evidence Of 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 7 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-8- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

Discipline And Alleged Discrimination Prior to March 30, 2001 on August 10, 2005. The motion 

is subsumed by the stipulated order. Plaintiff seeks a limiting instruction. The Court will 

consider a limiting instruction consistent with the Court’s ruling that the evidence of prior history 

of workplace relations shows that not only were they working discharges, but that there was 

interaction and disagreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant both before and after the 1999 

accident. The limiting instruction will explain that the jury cannot consider the prior history to 

decide the issue of the termination itself because it was not a stated reason for termination. The 

parties are to propose a limiting instruction after meeting and conferring. 

Defendant’s Motions In Limine

(1) Plaintiff’s 1999 Accident. Denied in part. Granted in part in that the 

Court will give a limiting instruction. The parties are to propose a limiting instruction after 

meeting and conferring. 

(2) Plaintiff’s State of Mind. Denied. 

(3) Plaintiff’s Prior Discipline. Withdrawn. The issue was resolved by 

stipulation. The parties submitted the Stipulated Proposed Order Regarding Evidence Of 

Discipline And Alleged Discrimination Prior to March 30, 2001 on August 10, 2005. The motion 

is subsumed by the stipulated order. Plaintiff seeks a limiting instruction. The Court will 

consider a limiting instruction consistent with the Court’s ruling that the evidence of prior history 

of workplace relations shows that not only were they working discharges, but that there was 

interaction and disagreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant both before and after the 1999 

accident. The limiting instruction will explain that the jury cannot consider the prior history to 

decide the issue of the termination itself because it was not a stated reason for termination. The 

parties are to propose a limiting instruction after meeting and conferring. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 8 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-9- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(4) Defamation Claim. Granted. 

(5) Size and Resources of Defendant and its Legal Representation. Granted. 

(6) Stray Remarks. Granted in part. Plaintiff is precluded from arguing, 

referencing or introducing evidence regarding (i) Scott Barsarian’s alleged comment years prior 

to Plaintiff’s termination: “I don’t like Oakland because there are too many people like you 

there.” (ii) purported rumors that someone said that Plaintiff’s supervisor, James Wood, called 

Plaintiff “Wood’s whipping boy”; (iii) that a supervisor called Plaintiff "boy."; and (iv) purported 

rumors that Plaintiff thinks Mr. Wood is prejudiced. Denied in part as to Jim Dugan’s purported 

comment that Plaintiff had a “red flag” by his name. 

(7) Condition of Tractor No. 204166 Before and After March 29, 2001. 

Granted in part. Plaintiff is precluded from referring to or introducing evidence regarding the 

condition of the vehicle subsequent to March 30, 2001. Denied in part based on Defendant’s 

withdrawal regarding the vehicle’s condition prior to March 30, 2001. 

(8) Discrimination and Retaliation Against Third Parties. Granted.

(9) Hearsay or Speculation. Denied. The Court will rule on objections as they 

are raised. 

(10) Other Jury Verdicts Or Lawsuits. Granted.

(11) Defendant’s Legal Representation. Granted.

(12) Wrongdoing or Controversial Acts By Wood. Granted.

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 9 of 10
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 

Case No. Civ-F-02-6509 OWW LJO 

-10- ORDER RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

(13) Lay Opinion Regarding Mechanical Condition of Vehicle. Granted. 

Drivers who are not mechanics may not testify regarding their opinion regarding the condition of 

the vehicle. However, they can testify regarding their observations and experience. 

(14) Plaintiff’s Proposed Expert. Denied without prejudice. The Court will 

entertain a motion regarding Plaintiff’s expert’s qualifications. UPS will present the motion. 

(15) Michael Hoffrage’s Observations Regarding Vehicle That Differ From 

Plaintiff’s Complaints. Denied. Plaintiff may present evidence regarding Mr. Hoffrage’s 

observations on March 29-30,2001. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this __17th___ day of _____August_____________, 2005 

 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

________________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE OLIVER W. WANGER 

SF/375516.1 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:02-cv-06509-OWW -LJO Document 157 Filed 08/18/05 Page 10 of 10