Opinion ID: 783131
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court's exclusion of the purported antidiscrimination policy

Text: 21 The only evidentiary ruling challenged by the appellants is the trial court's exclusion of an antidiscrimination policy that was purportedly applicable to American Gem. We review the decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion, see Tremain v. Bell Indus., Inc., 196 F.3d 970, 976 (9th Cir.1999), and we find none here. 22 The purported antidiscrimination policy is part of a document entitled Quick Reference Guide on Policies/Procedures for Mission City Management, Inc. The specific policy is found under the heading Sexual Discrimination/Harassment and makes one reference to race: Mission City Management, Inc. prohibits harassment based on race, color, religion, sex national origin [sic], age, disability or veteran status. The defendants attempted to admit the document during Lees's trial testimony to demonstrate that the corporate defendants had an antidiscrimination policy. 23 The district court excluded the document for several reasons. Because Mission City Management, Inc., although related to MCMI Food Company, is a separate company and was not a defendant, 3 the district court initially held that there was no foundation establishing that the document was the policy of the corporate defendants. After Lees testified that he had established this policy as the policy of MCMI, the court excluded the document because it was undated and unsigned, it was not produced in discovery, and there was no evidence that it had been seen by anyone at Pacific Gem. 24 The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the document as a discovery sanction. The appellants concede that the policy was not produced to Zhang until after the discovery cut-off date and after Lees's deposition. The only basis for nondisclosure given by counsel at trial was that there was a rash of discovery when we were involved in the case, and no additional reasons have been given in the briefing before this Court. This does not constitute a substantial justification for not disclosing this document, and in the absence of such a justification the district court may validly exclude, as a discovery sanction, evidence not produced in discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1). 25 Alternatively, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence for lack of foundation. In order for the document to be relevant to this case, see Fed.R.Evid. 401, the defendants would have had to establish that it actually reflected the policy of Pacific Gem, American Gem, or MCMI, and there was no competent evidence that it had in fact been distributed to the managers or employees of any of these entities. Although Lees testified that the policy had been distributed, he also testified that others performed the distribution, and there is no evidence that he had personal knowledge that employees received the policy. Furthermore, at trial, the defendants stipulated to the fact that American Gem never provided Zhang with a company policy or handbook prohibiting discrimination or harassment. The district court's conclusion that Lees's testimony was insufficient to provide a foundation for this document was not an abuse of discretion. 26