Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC

Background

Defendants moved to exclude three categories of evidence from trial: (1) specific experiences of managers other than Michael Ortiz or Level 4 Shift Managers at the facilities where Ortiz worked during his employment; (2) processes, staffing, or volume at delivery stations other than the three facilities where Ortiz worked; and (3) defendants’ policies and practices before February 1, 2016, and after December 11, 2016.

Defendants argued that the evidence was irrelevant to Ortiz’s individual claims. They alternatively argued under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 that the evidence’s usefulness would be substantially outweighed by the risk of undue delay and wasted time. Ortiz argued that the motions were insufficiently specific because defendants had not identified the particular testimony or exhibits they sought to exclude. The court rejected that argument and found the motions specific enough to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)(B).

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that whether Ortiz was subject to the executive exemption was an affirmative defense, meaning defendants bore the burden of proving it. Under the applicable California regulation, defendants would need to show that Ortiz was primarily engaged in exempt duties. The court identified Ortiz’s actual work during the workweek as the “first and foremost” consideration, along with the amount of time he spent on that work.

The court also stated that it had to consider defendants’ realistic expectations and the realistic requirements of the job. The court found that defendants had not adequately addressed that fact-intensive part of the inquiry in their motions. Defendants had not indicated that they would refrain from presenting evidence about how the job’s expectations were communicated to Ortiz or why defendants considered those expectations realistic.

The court acknowledged an earlier finding that the duties of a Level 4 Shift Manager could vary depending on the type of shift and that processes could vary among facilities. But it concluded that this finding did not prevent evidence about other Level 4 Shift Managers, other facilities’ processes, staffing, or volume, or policies before and after Ortiz’s tenure from being relevant to defendants’ realistic expectations for a position they uniformly classified as exempt. The court also concluded that Ortiz should be able to respond to evidence defendants presented on that issue.

Ruling

The court denied defendants’ motions in limine to the extent they sought a blanket exclusion of the identified evidence based on relevance. The order was without prejudice to defendants making specific objections to particular evidence or testimony during trial.

The court found defendants’ concerns about undue delay and wasted time persuasive. It therefore stated that the bifurcated trial would be limited to Ortiz’s individual claim and that it would curtail efforts to depart from the stipulated procedure approved by the court. Although the court did not categorically bar Ortiz from offering evidence within the identified categories, it required a “very strong showing” that each exhibit or piece of testimony was directly relevant to defendants’ realistic expectations for the Level 4 Shift Manager position and was not cumulative of evidence already presented. Judge Jeffrey White issued the order.