Pierce v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAJI PIERCE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-04325-AGT Plaintiffs, ORDER ON (I) MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT (IID MOTION TO STRIKE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 73, 113 Defendants. Plaintiffs have put forward enough evidence to survive summary judgment. The ultimate questions of whether defendants discriminated and retaliated against plaintiffs and created a hostile work environment will need to be resolved “through a searching inquiry—one that is most appropriately conducted by the factfinder, upon a full record.” Reynaga v. Roseburg For- est Prods., 847 F.3d 678, 691 (9th Cir. 2017) (‘[W]e require very little evidence to survive summary judgment in a discrimination case... .”) (simplified). Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is denied. So too is plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of defendants’ summary judgment reply brief. The Court considered the entire reply brief and still concluded that summary judgment wasn’t warranted. There’s no need to strike any portion of the reply brief. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 24, 2023 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge