Jones

Jones v. Brennan

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 25, 20214:18-cv-07569California1,069 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KYUNG SOOK JONES, Case No. 18-cv-07569-HSG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION IN

v. LIMINE NO.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Re: Dkt. No. 72 Defendant.

12 In its Motion in Limine No. 1, Defendant seeks exclusion of twenty witnesses who Plaintiff included in her witness list in the Joint Pretrial Statement, but who had not previously been identified in Plaintiff’s initial disclosures or interrogatory responses. Dkt. No. 72-1 (“Mot.) at 2-3. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request to exclude eighteen of these witnesses due to Plaintiff’s untimely disclosure, and DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s request to exclude Lawrence E. LaCroix and Mike Hetticher. 18 This district’s General Order 71 requires the plaintiff in an employment case alleging 19 adverse action to identify, early in the case, “persons the plaintiff believes to have knowledge of 20 the facts concerning the claims…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.