2:09-cv-02972
E.D. Cal.Dec 20, 2011Background
- Ani Chopourian sued Catholic Healthcare West and others in the Eastern District of California; case filed under Civ. No. S-09-2972 KJM KJN.
- Motions in limine were heard on Nov. 8, 2011, with additional briefing and a Dec. 7, 2011 proceeding on motion in limine six.
- Court ruled on plaintiff’s and defendant’s motions in limine with rulings contingent on trial, and without prejudice to renewal.
- Court discussed HIPAA privacy implications, journal logs, and whether whistleblower protections apply; evidence tying to patient information was allowed with limits.
- Court addressed after-acquired evidence defense, its pleading requirements, and scheduling constraints; good-cause for amendments considered.
- Final order dated December 20, 2011 set forth disposition of each motion in limine and related rulings, with some issues deferred or reserved for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether journal entries and logs implicate HIPAA and whistleblower protections | Chopourian argues logs violate HIPAA and whistleblower protections; evidence irrelevant | Logs show policy violations and are relevant to defenses | Partially denied; court allows some evidence, limits on HIPAA scope. |
| Admissibility of a signed meal-break waiver | Waiver evidence should be excluded absent proper foundation | Blank form and deposition lack foundation; may be admissible with proper context | Granted due to insufficient foundation. |
| Whether after-acquired evidence defense can be used and properly pleaded | Defense should be pled and limited; timing barred by scheduling order | Defense is pleaded in effect via termination rationale | Resolved as to pleading and trial-issue; after-acquired defense addressed with limitations. |
| Exhaustion of EEOC remedies and scope of federal jurisdiction | Plaintiff exhausted through EEOC; claims fall within scope | Exhaustion may be required and scope contested | Exhaustion analyzed; hostile environment and related claims deemed exhausted to extent shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1995) (after-acquired evidence may be relevant to remedy; must show severity of misconduct)
- Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1992) (good cause standard for amendments; diligence focus)
- Surrell v. California Water Service Co., 518 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion and scope of Title VII claims; non-rigid rules)
- Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2003) (scope of EEOC investigation and related claims; liberal construction)
- Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 2002) (liberal construction of EEOC charge scope; exhaustion)