Page 1
ROBERTA L. STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA)
MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA)
JAMES H. BAKER JR, SBN 291836 (CA)
KENA C. CADOR, SBN 321094 (CA)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0950 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 james.baker@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TESLA, INC.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC PLAINTIFF EEOC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT TESLA’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Defendant.
Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) submits this Response in
opposition to Defendant Tesla, Inc.’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion to Stay All
Proceedings (ECF 22-5) filed on December 18, 2023. Tesla asks the Court to take judicial notice,
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, of 14 exhibits. EEOC objects to Tesla’s request regarding three of
these exhibits: Exhibit I (Transcript of Proceeding on December 13, 2021, in U.S. EEOC v.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., et al., in United States District Court (C.D. Cal), No. 2:21-CV-07682
(Activision Case)); Exhibit Q (Letter from Rosa Viramontes, EEOC Los Angeles District Director,
to Activision Blizzard filed in Activision Case on November 8, 2021); Exhibit R (Court Order
Denying Motion to Intervene in the Activision Case dated December 20, 2021). These exhibits are
irrelevant to the pending motion.
EEOC OPPOSITION TO TESLA REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 2
Defendant ostensibly requests judicial notice of these three documents to support its Motion
to Stay. But Tesla fails to articulate how these documents from an unrelated court proceeding to
which Tesla was not a party are relevant to its Motion to Stay. As such, there is no basis for
Defendant’s requests and no reason for the Court to grant them. Defendant’s requests regarding
these three irrelevant exhibits should be denied.
Judicial notice, as a mechanism of the Federal Rules of Evidence, is necessarily subject to the
threshold requirement of relevance. See Fed. R. Evid. 402 (“Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.”);
see also California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1016–
(E.D. Cal. 2015) (“Government records are susceptible to judicial notice when relevant to an
issue before the court.”) (emphasis added; quotes and brackets omitted), withdrawn by, in part and
corrected by, in part on other grounds Cal. Sportfishing Prot. Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc.,
2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 4, 2016)). The Ninth Circuit has denied requests for
judicial notice or affirmed denial of such requests when the documents have no bearing on the
underlying action. See Harris v. Allison, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 27232 at *5-6 (9th Cir. October 13,
2023) (denying request to take judicial notice because the documents are "not relevant to the
disposition of this appeal") (citing Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 512 (9th Cir. 2010)); Flick v.
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 386, 392 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) (denying request for judicial notice,
because historical statistics are not relevant to any issue on appeal); La Mirada Trucking, Inc. v.
Teamsters Local Union 166, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am.,
538 F.2d 286, 289 (9th Cir. 1976) (affirming denial of judicial notice request of NLRB factual
findings, because those findings “had no relevance to the existence of a potential unfair trade
practice or as to the propriety of the award” at issue in the case).
Indeed, Tesla acknowledges the Ninth Circuit’s holding that a federal court “may take notice
of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system if those
proceedings have a direct relation to the matters at issue”, citing United States v. Black, 482 F.3d
1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). (ECF 22-5, p. 2) Yet confoundingly, Tesla failed to
explain how documents from the Activision Case have any relationship, let alone a direct one, to the
resolution of Tesla’s Motion to Stay. Instead, Tesla’s discussion of the Activision Case (ECF 22, pp.
EEOC OPPOSITION TO TESLA REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 3
7-8) and Exhibits I, Q and R appears to be proffered solely for the unseemly purpose of casting
aspersions, based on unfounded speculation, at the EEOC and CRD. None of this has any
connection to the instant case against Tesla and whether this Court should grant Tesla’s Motion to
Stay. Tesla’s request for this Court to take judicial notice of Exhibits I, Q and R should be denied
because they are irrelevant.
Dated: January 3, 2024
ROBERTA STEELE
Regional Attorney
KARLA GILBRIDE
General Counsel
MARCIA L. MITCHELL
Assistant Regional Trial Attorney
CHRISTOPHER LAGE
Deputy General Counsel
JAMES H. BAKER
Senior Trial Attorney
Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20507
KENA C. CADOR
Trial Attorney
BY:
/s/ James H. Baker JAMES H. BAKER U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone (650) 684-0950 james.baker@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
EEOC OPPOSITION TO TESLA REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 4
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the foregoing, and with good cause appearing, the Court hereby denies to take
judicial notice of Defendant Tesla’s Exhibits I, Q and R in support of its Motion to Stay All
Proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
HON. JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Court Judge
EEOC OPPOSITION TO TESLA REQUEST
FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE & [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Back to 
