Zhang v. County of Monterey

Background

The court considered four motions in limine by Plaintiff Jacqueline Zhang and three by Defendants County of Monterey, Monterey County Resource Management Agency, and Monterey County Parks Department. A motion in limine asks the court to decide before trial whether particular evidence may be presented. The court applied the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 401, 402, and 403, and the disclosure rule in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1).

The claims remaining for trial were: (1) denial of a property interest without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) denial of a property interest without due process under the California Constitution; and (3) a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. Judgment had already been entered for the County on five other claims involving race and national-origin discrimination, discrimination based on marital status, a claim under 42 U.S.C. section 1981, deprivation of a liberty interest without due process, and a petition under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

Rulings on Zhang’s Motions

- Zhang’s Motion in Limine No. 1: Granted. The court excluded Kimberly Moore, the County’s Assistant Director of Human Resources, as a witness. The defendants acknowledged that they did not identify Moore until after fact discovery closed. The court found that the late disclosure was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The defendants had questioned Zhang during her deposition about the start of her first pay period before discovery closed, so the court concluded they had notice that testimony about County start-date policies could matter. Zhang also lost the opportunity to conduct discovery about Moore or depose her. - Zhang’s Motion in Limine No. 2: Denied. The court allowed evidence concerning the County’s reasons for terminating Zhang’s employment. That evidence could bear on whether Zhang completed her probationary period, whether she had a protected property interest in continued employment, whether the County had cause to terminate her if she was a permanent employee, and the parties’ competing accounts of the termination. - Zhang’s Motion in Limine No. 3: Denied without prejudice. Zhang argued that testimony about her performance, qualifications, experience, communication style, and events leading to her termination would be repetitive. The court found that the record was not developed enough to determine whether the proposed testimony would be needlessly cumulative. Zhang could make specific objections during trial, and the court stated that it would enforce trial time limits.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Motions

- Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1: Denied. The motion sought to call Moore as a witness. Because the court granted Zhang’s motion excluding Moore, it denied the defendants’ motion. - Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2: Denied without prejudice. The defendants sought to bar Zhang from presenting evidence concerning claims or remedies that had already been resolved on appeal. The court declined to issue a blanket ruling because evidence connected to resolved claims might still be relevant to the claims remaining for trial. The court instructed the defendants to object to specific evidence at trial. If such evidence were admitted, the court would instruct the jury that the defendants had prevailed on the resolved claims and that the jury should not consider those claims. - Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3: Denied. The defendants sought to exclude evidence about investigations into alleged financial mismanagement at the Resource Management Agency. The court found that the evidence could be relevant to Zhang’s contention that her participation in the investigations motivated the termination and to her effort to rebut the defendants’ contention that she was terminated because of her job performance. Zhang was therefore permitted to introduce the investigation evidence for those relevant purposes.

Effect of the Order

This was a pretrial evidence order. It did not decide the merits of Zhang’s remaining claims. The order controlled what evidence could be presented at trial and left some evidentiary objections for decision in the context of specific evidence offered during trial. Judge Lucy H. Koh signed the order on May 4, 2021.