The Board of Trustees v. Slauson

Background

Following a pretrial conference held on April 26, 2023, the court issued a pretrial order summarizing its rulings. Trial was scheduled for May 15 and 16, 2023. Testimony was set to run from 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., and total trial time was limited to eight hours: 4.5 hours for plaintiffs and 3.5 hours for defendant. Each side also received 15 minutes for an opening statement. Instead of closing arguments, the parties were directed to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with citations to the trial transcript, on a schedule set by the court.

Trial Procedures

The court instructed counsel to stand when making objections, identify the rule or basis for the objection, and avoid speaking objections or argument. Witnesses generally could testify only if identified in the pretrial submissions and the May 12, 2023 disclosure, except for true rebuttal or impeachment witnesses shown to be necessary for good cause. Exhibits likewise had to be identified in those submissions and disclosure, subject to a good-cause exception for true impeachment exhibits. The order also addressed courtroom attendance, masking and social-distancing requirements, exhibit binders, deposition transcripts, and notification of any settlement.

Motion in Limine

Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Evidence 402 to prevent defendant from offering evidence about the purported termination of its collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiffs argued that termination was not a valid defense to their claims for unpaid contributions under Ninth Circuit law.

The court denied the motion. It discussed earlier Ninth Circuit decisions stating that a collective bargaining agreement’s purported termination could be a voidable—not void—contract issue and therefore not a legitimate defense to an action seeking delinquent contributions. But the court also explained that later decisions had given those earlier cases a narrow reading. Those later decisions recognized that evidence might be relevant to whether a valid contract existed that created an obligation to contribute to the trust funds, and distinguished situations involving different conduct concerning purported termination.

Because of those later decisions, the court ruled that it would hear the evidence and determine whether it should consider defendant’s termination defense. The order therefore did not decide the defense on its merits.

Witness Depositions and Disposition

The parties were ordered to immediately meet and confer about scheduling in-person depositions of Joe Thallest and Joe Hopkins. The order states that defendant must bear all listed expenses, including court reporter and videographer fees, expedited transcripts, and attorneys’ fees required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a). The excerpt provided ends during this discussion, so it does not show whether additional rulings followed.

The plaintiffs’ motion in limine was denied. The remaining rulings set trial procedures and directed the parties regarding the two depositions. Judge Donna Ryu signed the order on May 1, 2023.