1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 il RICHARD STORMS, Case No. 20-cv-07913-NC

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY DEFENDANT SHOULD v. NOT BE JUDICIALLY 1 ESTOPPED FROM COUNTY OF MONTEREY, CONTRADICTING ITS PREVIOUS CONCESSIONS © Defendant. 15

A 16 In its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Defendant S 2 17 | conceded that: (1) Plaintiff was qualified for his job, with or without accommodation, 2 18 during all relevant periods of time, and (2) the April 26, 2019, Formal Notice of Discipline 19 |! is an adverse employment action. From the pretrial filings, it appears that Defendant 20 intends to relitigate these issues. But “[t]ruth is not a weather vane. It does not veer when 21 |! the winds of self-interest change.” Dep’t of Transp. v. Coe,

, 507 □□□□ 22 I Ct. App. 1983). Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to show cause, in court on August 23 8, 2022, why it should not be judicially estopped from presenting evidence and arguments 24 contrary to its previous concessions. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || Dated: August 5, 2022 Lh 28 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge