Halliday et al v. Spjute et al

Filing 379

ORDER RE: MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL OR TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/31/2016. (Kusamura, W)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

MICHAEL IOANE, et al,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs
v.

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-0620 AWI EPG
ORDER RE: MOTION TO BIFURCATE
TRIAL OR TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL
DATE

KENT SPJUTE, et al,
(Doc. 372)
Defendants

10
11

This case stems from allegations that Defendants acted improperly in executing a search

12

warrant on Plaintiffs’ home, violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Part of Plaintiffs’ claim is

13

that Defendants’ actions caused mental suffering. Defendants’ expert Dr. Ricardo Winkel

14

completed psychological examinations of both Plaintiffs, produced an expert report, and is

15

expected to testify at trial regarding Plaintiffs’ mental state. The trial in this case is set to begin

16

June 7, 2016. Due to a family matter that has recently arisen, Dr. Winkel will be out of the

17

country at a memorial service from June 8 to June 20, 2016. Defendants have made a motion to

18

bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases or to continue the trial date; Defendants

19

specify that they seek to retain the same jury for both phases of the trial. Doc. 372. Plaintiffs

20

consent to a postponement of the trial but oppose bifurcation. Doc. 376. Before Dr. Winkel’s

21

scheduling conflicts arose, Defendants had made a prior motion to bifurcate, arguing it would be

22

efficient and avoid the possibility of damages testimony prejudicing the liability determination.

23

Doc. 284. Magistrate Judge Gary Austin denied the motion. Doc. 312.

24

“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a

25

separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party

26

claims.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 42(b). Bifurcating a trial into liability and damages phases is not

27

uncommon. See, e.g. Boone v. Los Angeles, 522 Fed. Appx. 402, 403 (9th Cir. 2013); M2

28

Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entm’t, 421 F.3d 1073, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005); Hill v. Clark, 2016 U.S.

1

Dist. LEXIS 23366, *11 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12342, *13 n.2

2

(C.D. Cal. 2016); Petersen v. Costco Wholesale Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9030, *46-47 (C.D.

3

Cal. 2016). As liability is a dispositive issue, a verdict in the first phase could “obviate[] the need”

4

for the second phase which “properly serve[s] the goals of Rule 42(b).” Allstate Ins. Co. v.

5

Breeden, 410 Fed. Appx. 6, 9 (9th Cir. 2010).

6

Defendants again argue that bifurcation would be efficient and avoid the possibility of

7

damages testimony prejudicing the liability determination. The new factor to be considered is the

8

unavailability of Dr. Winkel. In this case, Plaintiffs’ damages are solely based on mental

9

suffering. Plaintiffs do not assert any physical injuries and their claims for economic damages

10
11

were dismissed. Dr. Winkel’s testimony is central to Defendants’ case on this point.
Plaintiffs argue that presentation of the entire case, liability and damages, is likely to take

12

less than a week so there would be little time savings in bifurcating the trial. Further Plaintiffs

13

point out logistical concerns weighing against phasing. Plaintiff Michael Ioane, Sr. is currently

14

incarcerated so having two trials could potentially create problems with transportation and his

15

housing. Arranging to bring back the same jury for a second phase may also be difficult to

16

schedule.

17

In this case, the drawbacks of bifurcation outweigh the benefits. The entire case, liability

18

and damages, is expected to be short. Given Dr. Winkel’s schedule, the second phase would have

19

to take place several weeks after the first phase; the jury would not be able to immediately start the

20

second phase of trial immediately after the first. Continuing the trial until a time when all

21

witnesses are available is the preferable option.

22

The trial date of June 7, 2016 is VACATED. The pretrial conference is to be held on April

23

4, 2016. At that time, the parties are expected to be familiar with their own schedules and

24

prepared to set a new date for trial.

25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2016
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3