Opinion ID: 694883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Garbers' Evidentiary Claim

Text: 8 Garbers argues that the magistrate judge erred in allowing testimony regarding exact overtime percentages when such percentages were not disclosed by the Postal Service in its answers to Garbers' interrogatories. Garbers' argument is meritless. 9 The lower court's evidentiary rulings  'are not reversible absent clear abuse of discretion'  and this court cannot reverse 'absent some prejudice.'  Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir.1988). To show reversible prejudice a party must demonstrate that the allegedly erroneous evidentiary ruling more probably than not was the cause of the result reached by the court. Id. at 1133 (citation omitted). 10 Garbers cannot show that admitting the exact overtime percentages more probably than not was the cause of the result reached by the court. Jauregui, 852 F.2d at 1133. Here, the magistrate judge relied upon TWA v. Hardison for the proposition that any overtime costs constitute undue hardship. Thus, the exact percentage of the overtime costs was not important to the magistrate judge's holding. 11 Moreover, the Postal Service acknowledged in its answers to Garbers' interrogatories that substantial overtime costs played a role in why it denied Garbers' requests for leave. In Defendant's Supplemental Response to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories (Supplemental Response), the Postal Service gave the following answer: INTERROGATORY NO. 5: 12 If you allege or contend that cost is a factor in requiring the plaintiff to work such hours, please detail the costs which would be incurred by accommodating the plaintiff. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: 13 ... The undue hardship to defendant was having to bring in another employee to perform plaintiff's tasks or, in light of the significant shortage of staff, not having the work performed. Because of the substantial overtime being paid by the Postal Service during this time period, requiring other employees to do plaintiff's work during his absence would only serve to increase the overtime burden on defendant. 14 Although the Postal Service did not give the exact percentage, it did state that the overtime costs being paid were substantial. There was thus no surprise at trial when the Postal Service brought up the issue of overtime costs and estimated them to be 12%. 15 Finally, Garbers had access to the actual documents showing the amount of overtime costs to the Postal Service for the dates in question. The documents appeared as Exhibit 15 to the EEO Investigator's report, and this report was sent to Garbers and his attorney. Moreover, the documents were attached to the Postmaster General's Motion for Summary Judgment. Thus, Garbers and his attorney had ample opportunity to figure out the costs of overtime prior to trial.