Williams v. United Airlines, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 6 — 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 8 — 9 CLARENCE WILLIAMS, 10 Plaintiff, No. C 19-02988 WHA 11 v. || UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ORDER RE MOTION FOR 3 Defendant CERTIFICATE OF , APPEALABILITY AS TO ORDER 14 RE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE UNDER WIRETAP ACT A 16 The motion to certify under Section 1292(b) is DENIED. We are dealing 3 17 with an evidentiary issue. There is enough evidence to go to trial even if the 18 recording is excluded. The appeal now will not materially advance the 19 termination of litigation. See Lerner v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 690 F.2d 203 , 20 211 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1982). — 21 — — 22 — 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. — 24 — 25 Dated: April 8, 2021. 26 Pee {A> _ FX oe WILLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE