Lopez v. San Saba Vineyards, Inc.

Background

The court held a pretrial conference on July 5, 2023, and resolved most of San Saba Vineyards, Inc.’s three motions in limine. A motion in limine is a request to decide before trial whether certain evidence or procedures will be allowed. The order did not resolve issues in Motion in Limine No. 1 that required further briefing, and it reserved judgment on issues concerning Isaac Espinoza’s testimony pending his deposition.

Motion in Limine No. 1: Cal OSHA citations

San Saba Vineyards asked the court to bar Marvin Lopez from presenting evidence about inspections conducted on or after October 20, 2019, by the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health, including April 9, 2020 amended citations and penalty notices. The defendant argued that the citations were irrelevant to Lopez’s retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5 and his wrongful-termination claim, were potentially confusing or misleading, and were hearsay.

The court denied San Saba Vineyards’s request to exclude the citations under California Labor Code section 6304.5. The court concluded that the defendant had not shown that the statute controlled the admissibility of the citations in actions other than personal-injury or wrongful-death suits. The court ordered further briefing concerning Lopez’s claim under section 1102.5(c), which would affect the remaining questions about the citations’ relevance and value. The court also reserved judgment on whether the citations qualified for the public-records exception to the hearsay rule.

Motion in Limine No. 2: Isaac Espinoza

San Saba Vineyards sought to prevent Espinoza from testifying because Lopez had not provided Espinoza’s contact information in required disclosures. Alternatively, the defendant asked for a pretrial deposition and sought to limit testimony it claimed was irrelevant, unsupported, improper lay opinion, or hearsay.

The parties said that neither side had Espinoza’s current contact information and that no one had been able to locate him. The court ruled that Espinoza could not testify at trial unless he appeared for a deposition reasonably before trial. The deposition had to occur no later than July 17, 2023, and could last no more than three hours. The court reserved judgment on the basis, relevance, and scope of Espinoza’s testimony until after the deposition. The court also ruled that Espinoza’s declaration would not be admitted into evidence; Lopez had acknowledged that it could not properly be admitted.

Motion in Limine No. 3: bifurcation and financial-condition evidence

San Saba Vineyards asked the court to divide the trial so that evidence about punitive damages, including the company’s financial condition, would be presented only if the jury found that punitive damages should be awarded. Lopez did not oppose the request.

The court granted the motion for bifurcation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. In the first phase, the same jury will decide liability and whether punitive damages are warranted. If the jury finds for Lopez on liability and finds that he is entitled to punitive damages, the trial will immediately proceed to a second phase in which the same jury will decide the amount. The order states that Lopez may not present evidence of San Saba Vineyards’s financial condition unless the jury returns a verdict in his favor and finds the company liable for punitive damages.

Disposition

The court denied the request to exclude the Cal OSHA citations under section 6304.5, reserved judgment on other citation-related issues, conditioned Espinoza’s trial testimony on a timely deposition, excluded his declaration, and granted the motion to bifurcate the punitive-damages portion of trial.