Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03626/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03626-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Continental Casualty Company
Defendant
Ginger Matsumoto-Herera
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINGER MATSUMOTO-HERERA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-03626-VC 

FINAL ORDER REGARDING 

MOTIONS IN LIMINE; ORDER RE 

ADDITIONAL PRETRIAL MATTERS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 58-62, 72-76, 78, and 80-81

Following the final pretrial conference, the Court rules as follows on the motions in limine:

 Continental Casualty's Motion in Limine No. 1, to exclude Susan Hunt's testimony 

regarding Matsumoto-Herrera's job responsibilities and performance, and any 

evidence of Matsumoto-Herrera's performance, including performance evaluations,

is denied. Evidence regarding Matsumoto-Herrera's past performance is relevant to 

the question whether the explanations given by the decision-makers for not hiring 

her to the Operations Director position were pretextual, and there is no showing

that the probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by any risk of 

unfair prejudice.

 For reasons that will be explained in a separate order, Continental Casualty's 

Motion in Limine No. 2, to exclude evidence relating to Olga Brody's performance 

and termination, is denied.

 Continental Casualty's Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude all evidence of any 

assertions, claims, complaints, and "me-too" evidence of discrimination by 

Continental Casualty against other employees and former employees, is granted. 

The probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of 

unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues.

Case 3:14-cv-03626-VC Document 88 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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

 Continental Casualty's Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude testimony by Dr. Gary 

Apter and Dr. James Stark, is denied. The motion is moot as to Dr. Stark. As to 

Dr. Apter, Matsumoto-Herrera's primary care physician, his testimony regarding 

her level of emotional distress is relevant, and its probative value is not 

substantially outweighed by any risk of unfair prejudice or confusing the issues.

 Matsumoto-Herrera's Motion in Limine No. 1, to exclude witnesses from the 

courtroom, is granted subject to two exceptions. Continental Casualty's designated 

representative is entitled to remain in the courtroom throughout trial. Continental 

Casualty's expert, James Langenfeld, will also be permitted to remain in the 

courtroom.

 Matsumoto-Herrera's Motion in Limine No. 2, to exclude evidence regarding 

Matsumoto-Herrera's car leases, mortgage and credit card payments, and Facebook 

photographs is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as to the 

car leases and mortgage and credit card payments, which are irrelevant to the 

question of Matsumoto-Herrera's emotional distress. The motion is denied as to the 

Facebook photographs. Those photographs have at least some marginal relevance

to the question of Matsumoto-Herrera's emotional distress, and there is no showing 

that the probative value of that evidence is substantially outweighed by any risk of

unfair prejudice.

 Matsumoto-Herrera's Motion in Limine No. 3, to exclude evidence of collateral 

source payments, is granted in part. Continental Casualty may not adduce evidence 

that Matsumoto-Herrera received any collateral source benefits (whether short-term 

disability benefits, workers' compensation benefits, retirement benefits,

unemployment benefits, or other collateral sources), nor may it adduce evidence of

the amount of those benefits. Continental Casualty may, however, pursue the 

theory that Matsumoto-Herrera's job search activities were designed to qualify her 

for unemployment benefits.

 Matsumoto-Herrera's Motion in Limine No. 4, to exclude testimony by James 

Case 3:14-cv-03626-VC Document 88 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Langenfeld, is granted in part. Langenfeld is not permitted to testify about whether 

Matsumoto-Herrera's efforts to mitigate were reasonable, because that is for the 

jury to decide. Langenfeld also may not testify about whether there were 

opportunities for Matsumoto-Herrera to follow up on particular job applications she 

submitted, because the jury doesn't need expert testimony to figure that out. 

Langenfeld may, however, testify about the nature of the job market, including how 

many jobs were available during the relevant time period that were comparable, in 

his estimation, to the one she previously held, the average salaries of those jobs and 

like information, and about statistics regarding the average amount of time a jobseeker looks for work.1

 Matsumoto-Herrera's Motion in Limine No. 5, to exclude evidence regarding the 

general release and settlement agreement offered to Matsumoto-Herrera after she 

was terminated, is granted. That evidence is not relevant, since the elimination of

Matsumoto-Herrera's position is not the subject of a claim the jury must decide at 

trial. And even if the evidence were relevant, offers of settlement are inadmissible 

to prove or disprove liability.

The Court also rules as follows on several additional pretrial matters:

 For the reasons stated on the record, and good cause appearing, Continental 

 

1 After the Court ruled from the bench on the motions in limine, Continental Casualty sought 

reconsideration of this ruling. In its request for reconsideration, Continental Casualty relies on a 

Ninth Circuit case it did not cite in opposition to the motion in limine, Cassino v. Reichhold 

Chems., Inc., 817 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1987). Continental Casualty bravely asserts that despite its 

failure to cite this case, there was a "manifest failure" by the Court to consider it. In any event, 

Cassino does not require, or even suggest, that the decision to partly grant and partly deny 

Matsumoto-Herrera's fourth motion in limine should be reversed. In Cassino, the Ninth Circuit 

held that the district court erred in refusing to allow any expert testimony about mitigation, 

because the testimony "might have helped the jury to understand how personnel managers 

generally search for jobs." 817 F.2d at 1346. In this case, and under this ruling, Continental 

Casualty is being allowed to present expert testimony about mitigation – testimony that will help 

the jury understand the job market, the jobs available to Matsumoto-Herrera, and the efforts that 

can be made to attain such jobs. The Court has simply ruled that the expert may not offer an 

opinion about the ultimate legal question (namely, whether Matsumoto-Herrera's mitigation efforts 

were reasonable), nor about an issue on which a lay person doesn't need assistance (such as 

whether a particular job posting gave applicants instructions that Matsumoto-Herrera didn't 

follow).

Case 3:14-cv-03626-VC Document 88 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Casualty's unopposed motion for leave to file its Motion in Limine No. 4 under seal 

is granted.

 Continental Casualty's request for judicial notice in support of its opposition to 

Matsumoto-Herrera's Motion in Limine No. 4 is granted. 

 For the reasons stated on the record, Matsumoto-Herrera's supplemental Motion to

Admit Prior testimony and Evidence, Dkt. No. 80, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015

______________________________________

 VINCE CHHABRIA

 United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03626-VC Document 88 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 4