Gardner v. City of Berkeley

Background

The City of Berkeley filed five motions in limine, which are requests to limit or exclude evidence before trial. The order concerns the claims that remained after judgment had been entered for the City on Gardner’s disability-discrimination claims. The order states that the remaining claims included age-discrimination claims. It also cautions that a ruling on a motion in limine may be revised at trial.

Rulings

1. Testimony containing legal conclusions — denied. The court denied the City’s request for a blanket exclusion because the current record did not allow one. The court did rule that one witness’s statement that another person’s comments “amounted to a violation of workplace harassment policy” was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 403. The court explained that the officer lacked the expertise and authority to reach that conclusion. Other testimony, including testimony about Gardner’s qualifications compared with candidates who were promoted, might be relevant and admissible if Gardner establishes a proper foundation, including the witness’s personal knowledge and a sufficient connection between the testimony and promotion decisions. Gardner must prepare a specific offer of proof for proposed testimony that he was more qualified than a promoted candidate, and the parties must meet and confer about disputed evidence.

2. Evidence about dismissed claims, Gardner’s prior lawsuit, and settled claims — granted. The court granted this motion. Instead of revisiting the earlier dispute, the parties agreed that the court would read a statement summarizing Gardner’s prior employment with and reinstatement to the Berkeley Police Department. The statement was to be finalized at the further pretrial conference, with specified changes to Gardner’s proposed wording.

The court also emphasized that evidence submitted at summary judgment in support of claims for which judgment was granted would not be admissible at trial unless Gardner could show a connection to the remaining age-discrimination claims. The order gave as an example a statement about Gardner returning to disability leave, for which the court saw no obvious basis for admission because judgment had been entered for the City on the disability-discrimination claims.

3. Evidence of alleged discrimination against third parties — granted as unopposed. The court granted the motion because Gardner did not oppose it.

4. Qualifications not formally included in Gardner’s application packet — denied. The court denied the motion as too broad. Gardner might be able to show that the Chief knew or should have known about qualifications outside the written application packet. For each such qualification, Gardner must provide an offer of proof and comply with the same process for resolving evidentiary disputes.

5. Alleged performance problems of sergeants promoted in 2016 and 2017 — denied. The court denied a blanket exclusion because it could not decide the issue categorically. Some witnesses might have informed testimony about events involving Sergeant Jung or others that could be relevant to the candidates’ qualifications compared with Gardner’s. Gardner must establish a factual basis for each incident, a sufficient connection to the promotion decision, and adequate personal knowledge for each witness.

Disposition and effect

The City’s five motions received three denials and two grants. The order did not decide that all evidence in the categories addressed by the denied motions would be admitted. Instead, it required Gardner to establish the necessary foundation for particular evidence and allowed the parties to present unresolved disputes at the further pretrial conference scheduled for May 13. The order was entered by Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge.