Bookhamer et al v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.

Filing 165

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 163 Defendant's Motion to Bifurcate. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANTHONY BOOKHAMER, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-09-6027 EMC

SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC.,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 163)

13
14
15

This case arises out of a fire that caused the death of Victoria DiSilvestro and badly injured

16

her minor son, Anthony Bookhamer. Anthony Bookhamer, through his grandmother and guardian

17

ad litem, Lena Tryon, brought this suit along with other family members and successors in interest

18

to Victoria DiSilvestro’s estate. Plaintiffs allege that the fire was caused by a faulty electric mattress

19

pad manufactured by Defendant.

20

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to bifurcate the damages and liability phases

21

of the upcoming trial in this matter. The jury trial is set to start February 2, 2013.

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[f]or convenience, to avoid

24

prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate

25

issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Under Rule

26

42(b), a district court has broad discretion in determining whether to bifurcate a trial. Hangarter v.

27

Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Rule 42(b) merely allows, but

28

does not require, a trial court to bifurcate cases”). Defendant argues that bifurcating the trial is

1

appropriate because there is little to no overlap in the evidence for the liability and damages parts of

2

the trial, and because Defendant would be prejudiced if the jury were to hear testimony about

3

Anthony Bookhamer’s extensive physical and emotional damages before reaching a verdict on

4

liability.

5

Plaintiff objects to bifurcating the trial, and argues that there is considerable overlap in

6

evidence and witnesses between the two phases of the trial. For example, Plaintiffs state that several

7

family members may be called to testify both about whether Victoria DiSilvestro habitually disabled

8

her smoke detectors (which goes to liability) and about the relationship between Victoria and her

9

children and about Anthony’s injuries (all of which go to damages). Several of Victoria’s neighbors
may likewise be called to testify about the same subjects, as well as about their observations the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

morning of the fire. Plaintiffs also plan on calling several of Anthony’s doctors to testify regarding

12

both the causation (liability) and extent (damages) of Anthony’s alleged brain injury. Plaintiffs state

13

that a number of these witnesses live over 700 miles away, and some of them live out of state.

14

Requiring them to testify twice, therefore, would cause considerable inconvenience and expense.

15

Where, as here, there is an overlap of evidence, issues of liability and damages are generally

16

tried together, and courts minimize the risk of prejudice or confusion with appropriate jury

17

instructions. Hangarter, 373 F.3d at 1021 (finding that district court did not abuse discretion in

18

declining to bifurcate trial on liability and punitive damages). Any prejudice from allowing the jury

19

to hear the damages evidence prior to a verdict on liability does not outweigh the inconvenience to

20

witnesses and to this Court that would result from bifurcation. As Plaintiffs point out, liability and

21

damages issues are regularly tried together in cases involving serious injuries to sympathetic

22

plaintiffs. The Court presumes that the jury will follow the instructions given by the Court.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial.

3

This order disposes of Docket No. 163.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 3, 2013

8
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3