Lopez v. United Parcel Services, Inc.

Filing 124

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND MOTION TO SET ORDER OF PROOF AT TRIAL re 119 , 121 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. Motion to Bifurcate Defendant has moved to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of trial. Defendant asserts that plaintiff's anticipated submission regarding damages, including evidence regarding his "long work hours" and "many missed lunches," will prejudice defendant if permitted during the liability phase. Defendant suggests that if bifurcation is denied, "the jury here likely will be swayed by Plaintiff's emotionally-laden testimony of long hours and missed meal breaks ­ issues completely unrelated and irrelevant to Plaintiff's exempt status." Mot. to Bifurcate at 4. The Court disagrees with defendant's contentions. First of all, the subjects about which defendant has expressed concern are not solely damages issues. Testimony and other evidence regarding plaintiff's work hours will certainly be relevant to the issue of liability. Second, the Court does not believe that trying the liability and damages phase of trial before a single jury will result in a Defendant has filed two motions, which the Court determines are suitable for resolution without further briefing or oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing set for March 26, 2010 is VACATED. v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. / BEN LOPEZ, Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 08-05396 SI ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE AND MOTION TO SET ORDER OF PROOF AT TRIAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 biased jury or otherwise unduly prejudice defendant. Finally, bifurcation will not improve judicial economy. For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to bifurcate is DENIED. (Docket No. 119). II. Motion to Set Order of Proof at Trial Defendant has also moved to alter the order of proof at trial such that defendant may open first, present evidence first, and present the final rebuttal argument. As defendant points out, the district court has "wide discretion" to control the order of proof at trial. See Summers v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 508 F.3d 923, 930 (9th Cir. 2007). In this case, although defendant bears the burden of proving the applicability of the claimed exemptions, there are still a number of matters on which plaintiff will bear the burden. Additionally, there has been no showing that an initial presentation by plaintiff will result in any prejudice to defendant. Accordingly, defendant's motion to set the order of proof at trial is DENIED. (Docket No. 121). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 1, 2010 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?