Lopez v. San Saba Vineyards, Inc.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION [7] 8 MARVIN LOPEZ, Case No. 22-cv-02652-VKD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS 10 v. IN LIMINE NOS. 1-3 11 SAN SABA VINEYARDS, INC., dba Re: Dkt. Nos. 29-31 WRATH WINES, [12] Defendant. [13] 14 The Court held a pretrial conference on July 5, 2023. Dkt. No. 35. This order resolves 15 most of defendant San Saba Vineyards, Inc.’s (“San Saba Vineyards”) motions in limine.1 Dkt. 16 Nos. 29-31. This order does not address the issues raised in Motion in Limine No. 1 that are 17 subject to further briefing as ordered by the Court. As discussed below, the Court also reserves 18 judgment on issues concerning Isaac Espinoza’s testimony, pending Mr. Espinoza’s appearance 19 for a deposition. 20 A. Motion in Limine No. 1 re Cal OSHA Citations 21 San Saba Vineyards moves for an order precluding Mr. Lopez from presenting evidence 22 relating to any inspection of San Saba Vineyards’s winery conducted on or after October 20, 2019 23 by the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health 24 (“Cal OSHA”), including any evidence concerning the Cal OSHA April 9, 2020 Amended 25 Citations and Notifications of Penalties and Notice of Proposed Penalties (“Citations”), 26 collectively identified as Exhibit 16. San Saba Vineyards contends that the evidence in question is [27] 1 irrelevant to Mr. Lopez’s claims for retaliation under California Labor Code § 1102.5 (claim 1) 2 and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (claim 2) because the Citations post3 date the October 19, 2019 termination of Mr. his employment and do not bear on matters about 4 which he complained to his supervisors. San Saba Vineyards further contends that any probative 5 value the Citations may have is outweighed by the possibility that the evidence will confuse or 6 mislead the jury and waste time and resources, to San Saba Vineyards’s prejudice. San Saba 7 Vineyards maintains that, in any event, the Citations are impermissible hearsay and no exceptions 8 apply. See Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, 802. 9 San Saba Vineyards’s motion to exclude the Citations based on California Labor Code 10 § 6304.5 is denied. That statute provides, in relevant part, that “[n]either the issuance of, or failure 11 to issue, a citation by the division shall have any application to, nor be considered in, nor be 12 admissible into, evidence in any personal injury or wrongful death action, except as between an 13 employee and his or her own employer.” San Saba Vineyards has not persuasively demonstrated 14 that § 6304.5 is dispositive of the admissibility of the Citations in actions beyond personal injury 15 or wrongful death suits. See generally Elsner v. Uveges, 34 Cal. 4th 915, 935 (2004) (“The first 16 paragraph of section 6304.5 addresses the applicability of Cal–OSHA provisions to administrative 17 proceedings brought by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health against employers to 18 enforce worker safety standards. . . . The second paragraph of section 6304.5 catalogues the rules 19 for the admissibility of Cal–OSHA provisions in trial court personal injury and wrongful death 20 actions.”); Rodriguez v. United Airlines, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 3d 1131 , (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“The 21 Supreme Court held [in Elsner] that under the 1999 amendment to California Labor Code 22 § 6304.5, Cal–OSHA provisions are admissible in negligence actions, just as any other statute or 23 regulation, including in third-party actions.”). 24 At the July 5, 2023 final pretrial conference, the Court ordered the parties to submit further 25 briefing concerning Mr. Lopez’s claim under California Labor Code § 1102.5(c) that will impact 26 the Court’s ruling on remaining issues raised in Motion in Limine No. 1, namely, the relevance 27 and probative value of the Citations. Except as discussed above, the Court reserves judgment on 1 Court finds that the Citations are relevant, the Court also reserves judgment on whether the 2 Citations fall within the public records exception to hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 3 803(8). 4 B. Motion in Limine No. 2 re Isaac Espinoza 5 San Saba Vineyards moves for an order precluding any testimony of Isaac Espinoza. San 6 Saba Vineyards contends that Mr. Espinoza’s testimony should be excluded on the ground that 7 Mr. Lopez did not provide Mr. Espinoza’s contact information in his Rule 26/General Order No. 8 71 disclosures. Alternatively, San Saba Vineyards requests an order (1) requiring Mr. Espinoza to 9 appear for a deposition of no more than three hours at least five days prior to the July 24, 2023 10 start of trial, and (2) precluding Mr. Espinoza from testifying about certain subjects, on the 11 grounds that Mr. Espinoza’s proposed testimony is irrelevant, lacks foundation, is not proper 12 matter for lay opinion testimony, and is impermissible hearsay. Fed. R. Evid. 402, 403, 601, 701, 13 802. 14 Assuming Mr. Espinoza can be located, Mr. Lopez does not object to permitting San Saba 15 Vineyards to depose Mr. Espinoza prior to trial. See Dkt. No. 33 at 5. However, at the final 16 pretrial conference, the parties stated that neither Mr. Lopez nor San Saba Vineyards has Mr. 17 Espinoza’s current contact information, and the parties further confirmed that no one has been able 18 to locate him. It is unclear whether Mr. Espinoza will even appear for trial. 19 Under the circumstances presented, the Court concludes that Mr. Espinoza may not testify 20 at trial unless he appears for a deposition reasonably in advance of the July 24, 2023 start of trial. 21 As discussed at the pretrial conference, the deposition must be conducted no later than July 17, 22 2023 and may not exceed three hours. 23 The Court otherwise reserves judgment on issues concerning the basis, relevance, and 24 scope of Mr. Espinoza’s testimony, pending his appearance for a pretrial deposition as ordered 25 above. 26 The Court will not admit Mr. Espinoza’s January 20202 declaration into evidence. Indeed, [27] 1 Mr. Lopez acknowledged at the pretrial conference that the declaration could not properly be 2 admitted into evidence. 3 C. Motion in Limine No. 3 for Bifurcation re Punitive Damages and Evidence of San Saba Vineyards’s Financial Condition [4] 5 San Saba Vineyards moves for an order bifurcating the trial, such that evidence relating to 6 punitive damages, including San Saba Vineyards’s financial condition, will be presented only if 7 the jury decides to award punitive damages. Relatedly, San Saba Vineyards requests an order 8 precluding Mr. Lopez from presenting any evidence of San Saba Vineyards’s financial condition, 9 unless the jury returns a verdict in Mr. Lopez’s favor, awards compensatory damages on his 10 wrongful termination claim, and finds that San Saba Vineyards is liable for punitive damages 11 under California Civil Code § 3294. 12 The Ninth Circuit has observed that “the normal procedure is to try compensatory and 13 punitive damage claims together with appropriate instructions to make clear to the jury the 14 difference in the clear and convincing evidence required for the award of punitive damages.” 15 Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 Nevertheless, the Court has broad discretion under Rule 42 to bifurcate trial of one or more 17 separate issues or claims “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize[.]” 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); see also Hangarter, 373 F.3d at 1021 (“Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure confers broad discretion upon the district court to bifurcate a trial, thereby 20 deferring costly and possibly unnecessary proceedings[.]”) (internal quotations and citation 21 omitted). 22 Mr. Lopez does not oppose this motion. Accordingly, San Saba Vineyards’s motion for 23 bifurcation is granted. Bifurcation does not appear to raise any serious efficiency concerns, as the 24 same jury that decides liability and entitlement to punitive damages will also decide the amount of 25 punitive damages. Accordingly, if, in the first phase of trial, the jury finds in favor of Mr. Lopez 26 on liability issues and finds that he is entitled to punitive damages, trial will immediately proceed 27 to a second phase in which the same jury will consider the amount of punitive damages to award. 1 Lopez from presenting any evidence of San Saba Vineyards’s financial condition, unless the jury 2 || returns a verdict in his favor and finds that San Saba Vineyards is liable for punitive damages. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: July 7, 2023 [6] VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 7 United States Magistrate Judge [13] © [16] = 17 Z 18