Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matson v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 30, 2013

MARY MATSON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant.

ORDER

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

This matter comes before the court on defendant's motion for leave to file a second summary judgment motion (Dkt. # 187)[1] and defendant's second motion in limine (Dkt. # 172).

With respect to the former, the Ninth Circuit has held that "district courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary judgment[.]" Hoffman v. Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010). The court exercises that discretion to prohibit successive motions for summary judgment in this case.

With respect to the latter, on May 14, 2013, this court entered an order sua sponte advising the parties that its prior orders on motions in limine will apply equally to the new trial, except with respect to the preemption issue on the extra-work assignments. Dkt. # 171. In that order, the court specifically stated that the "parties need not submit motions in limine, pretrial orders, trial briefs, proposed jury instructions, proposed voir dire, or agreed neutral statement of the case, unless the parties have new or additional information not previously raised. The court emphasizes that all prior rulings (except for preemption) will apply to the new trial." Id.

Defendant seeks an order excluding the following:

(1) Supervisor Janie Norton was supervisor Brian McKinney's Assistant;

(2) Doug Christensen "choked" Ms. Matson and tried to "twist" or "snap" her neck;

(3) Mr. McKinney was aware that Ms. Matson was in a fight with Mr. Christensen prior to Ms Matson bringing it to UPS's attention;

(4) Non-rebuttal testimony from previously undisclosed witnesses, including, but not limited to, Dr. Kevin McKeighen;

(5) The previous jury verdict on Ms. Matson's hostile work environment claim;

(6) The gender composition of employees and managers outside of Ms. Matson's workgroup;

(7) Allegations of a gender-based hostile work environment not disclosed in Ms. Matson's discovery responses, summary judgment briefings, trial brief, or in the alternative, allegations not raised in the first trial;

(8) Mr. McKinney failed or refused to assist Ms. Matson with an "over 70pound" package;

(9) The gender of the driver who replaced Ms. Matson or drivers who were ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.