Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM on behalf of all other similarly situated 12 individuals, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S TRIAL 13 Plaintiffs, BRIEF REGARDING ALLEGED JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS AND 14 v. PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTION 15 LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a (Doc. No. 387) Colorado Corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is Defendant Leprino Foods Company’s March 21, 2023 Trial 20 Brief, which requests the Court to exclude any further evidence about Leprino’s on-premises rest 21 break rule, and to instruct the jury that it must accept as fact that Leprino’s written meal and rest 22 break policies were compliant with the law during the class period. Doc. No. 387 at 5. 23 Additionally, Defendant’s Trial Brief requests that the Court instruct the jury that they may not 24 consider the fact that Leprino’s rest break policy required employees to remain on the premises 25 during a portion of the class period as a factor in determining whether Leprino required class 26 members to be on-call during rest breaks. Id. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in 27 part and deny in part Defendant’s Trial Brief. 28 1 Discussion 2 Defendant’s Argument 3 Defendant contends that Plaintiffs are arguing a non-certified theory of liability to the jury 4 that is not contained in the Court’s Final Pretrial Order. Specifically, Plaintiffs are allegedly 5 arguing that Leprino’s written rest break policy was facially unlawful, despite stating on multiple 6 occasions throughout the course of this litigation that the written policy was facially compliant 7 with the law. According to Defendant, Plaintiffs’ past statements are judicial admissions that they 8 now cannot contradict. Defendant also asserts that Plaintiffs failed to expressly state in their Joint 9 Pretrial Statement that they plan to rely on the text of Leprino’s written rest break policy to prove 10 that class members were on-call during their rest breaks. Defendant further requests that if the 11 Court allows Plaintiffs to continue to present evidence and argument regarding Leprino’s on- 12 premises rest break rule, then the Court should instruct the jury as to the California Department of 13 Industrial Relations’ change of guidance in November 2017 regarding the rest period obligations 14 of employers. 15 Plaintiff’s Argument 16 Plaintiffs contend that their arguments regarding Leprino’s written rest break policy are not 17 intended to prove that it was facially unlawful but rather to impeach Defendant’s argument that 18 class members were free to leave the facility entirely during their rest breaks. According to 19 Plaintiffs, Defendant raised its free-to-leave-facility defense for the first time when it filed its 20 motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 243). Therefore, Defendant should have expected 21 beginning at that time that Plaintiffs would eventually attempt to rebut Defendant’s free-to-leave- 22 facility defense by pointing to language in Leprino’s written rest break policy that prohibited class 23 members from leaving the facility during their rest breaks. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that they 24 are entitled to discuss Leprino’s written on-premises rest break rule at trial because Defendant 25 added as a disputed fact in the Joint Pretrial Statement whether Leprino required class members to 26 remain at the facility during all rest breaks, and because Defendant made several remarks in 27 defense at trial that class members regularly left the plant for their rest breaks. 28 1 Discussion 2 The Court notes as an initial matter that the written rest break policy containing the on- 3 premises rest break rule in question has already been admitted into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 2-13 without objection. See Doc. No. 384 at 172:15-23. Given this admission and Defendant’s 5 multiple statements in defense that class members were free to leave the Lemoore West facility 6 during their rest breaks, the Court will deny Defendant’s request to exclude any further evidence 7 or argument by Plaintiffs regarding the above on-premises rest break rule. That is, the Court will 8 not preclude Plaintiffs from presenting evidence or argument regarding Leprino’s on-premises rest 9 break rule to rebut Defendant’s defense that class members were free to leave the Lemoore West 10 facility entirely during their rest breaks. See Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Canyon Television & 11 Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1991) (“The district court has broad discretion 12 in deciding what constitutes proper rebuttal evidence.”). Leprino’s written rest break policy is 13 relevant to the certified issue of whether Leprino’s policies and practices effectively put class 14 members on-call during their breaks, and evidence and testimony have been admitted for the jury 15 to see what Leprino was aiming to provide with its written rest break policy and how it related to 16 its unwritten practices. 17 Nevertheless, as Plaintiffs concede, Plaintiffs have not and thus may not argue to the jury 18 that Leprino’s written rest break policy was facially unlawful or that it expressly required class 19 members to be on-call during their rest breaks. Plaintiffs admitted on multiple occasions that they 20 are not arguing that Leprino’s written rest break policy was facially unlawful. Therefore, the 21 Court will provide the following limiting instruction to the jury: 22 Several pages from Defendant’s employee handbook have been admitted into evidence. One of the pages in effect until October 2017 states the following: “All 23 employees must remain on facility property during their 20-minute paid rest breaks.” You may consider this statement for the sole purpose of rebutting 24 Defendant’s argument that class members were free to do and go about as they wished, including leaving the facility property, during their rest breaks. You may 25 not consider this evidence for any other purpose. How much weight, if any, to give this evidence is a question for you to decide. 26 // 27 // 28 —— III III IRIE IEEE IIE IE EEE EO 1 If Plaintiffs attempt to argue to the jury that the policy was facially unlawful or that it 2 |required class members to be on-call during rest breaks, then Defendant may object and the Court 3 | will address the matter accordingly.! 4 Order 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 e Defendant’s Trial Brief (Doc. No. 387) is granted in part and denied in part as 7 explained above; and 8 e Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (Doc. No. 371) is denied. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2p 11 Dated: _ April 3, 2023 : — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Defendant’s Trial Brief references Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice regarding screenshot photos of the following California governmental agency webpages: (1) the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) webpage 21 containing their FAQ on the topic of “Rest Periods/Lactation Accommodation” (https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_RestPeriods) as it existed on November 1, 2017, and (2) the DIR webpage 22 containing their FAQ on the topic of “Rest Periods/Lactation Accommodation” (https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_RestPeriods) as it existed on December 1, 2017. See Doc. No. 387 at 13-14 (citing 23 | Doc. No. 371). According to Defendant’s Trial Brief, these two DIR webpages show that the DIR changed its guidance to California employers in November 2017 following the California Supreme Court’s decision in Augustus 24 |v. ABM Sec. Servs., Inc., 2 Cal.5th 257 (2016), and that Leprino changed its written rest break policy to reflect this change. Doc. No. 387 at 13-14. 25 At trial, Steven Schmidt testified that Leprino’s change to its written rest break policy was “in response to the late 26 | 2016 California Supreme Court [Augustus] decision” and “articles for human resources professionals.” He made no reference to the DIR webpage. In light of Schmidt’s testimony and the Court’s limiting instruction above, the Court 97 | will deny Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice on relevance grounds. See Neylon v. Cty. of Inyo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161326, *10 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2016) (“[I]f an exhibit is irrelevant or unnecessary to deciding the matters at 28 a request for judicial notice may be denied.”) (citing Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1410 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1990) and Thompson v. DeLallo’s Italian Foods, Inc., 63 F.Supp.3d 1200, 1205 n.4 (E.D. Cal. 2014)).