It held that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding "me too" evidence from individuals outside of the protected class that the plaintiff had alleged. The plaintiff had alleged anti-Japanese and anti-Asian discrimination. He had not alleged pro-Arab favoritism, and the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of such favoritism from trial. The Court distinguished Johnson v. United Cerebral Palsy/Spastic Children’s Foundation (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 740 and Pantoja v. Anton (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 87 because the evidence at issue in those cases came from individuals who were within the protected classes alleged by the plaintiffs. Slip op. at 10-13.
The opinion is available here.