Rowland et al v. United States Postal Service et al
Filing
76
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 8/20/15. # 56 Motion to Bifurcate Trial Into Liability and Damages Phases # 56 is GRANTED.(lgale, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00883-KLM-MEH
TRAVIS ROWLAND, and
MELANIE ROWLAND,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court1 on Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate Trial Into
Liability and Damages Phases [#56]2 (the “Motion”). Plaintiffs filed a Response [#71] and
Defendant filed a Reply [#75] in further support of the Motion. The Court has reviewed the
Motion, the Response, the Reply, the entire docket, and the applicable law, and is
sufficiently advised in the premises. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion [#56] is
GRANTED.
I. Background
In this case, Plaintiffs bring claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28
1
The parties consented to proceed before the undersigned for all proceedings pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.2. See generally Consent Form [#20].
2
“[#56]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to
a specific paper by the Court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I
use this convention throughout this Order.
1
U.S.C. § 2671, relating to a July 6, 2011 automobile accident. Am. Compl. [#34] ¶¶ 1-3,
13. Plaintiffs allege that a tractor-trailer driven by an employee of the United States Postal
Service (“USPS”) collided with Plaintiff Travis Rowland’s vehicle and that the driver of the
USPS vehicle was negligent. Id. ¶¶ 19, 22-38. Plaintiff Melanie Rowland also brings a loss
of consortium claim. Id. ¶¶ 39-42.
At the September 15, 2014 Scheduling Conference the parties informed the Court
that they anticipated a seven-day trial to the Court. Sched. Order [#29] § 10. In the Motion,
Defendant asks the Court to bifurcate the trial into two phases: the first phase would be
dedicated to determining liability and, if Plaintiffs prevail in the first phase, the second
phase would be dedicated to determining damages. Motion [#56] at 1. Defendant argues
that this will conserve judicial resources and the parties’ resources. Id. at 1-7. Defendant
further argues that bifurcation will not prejudice Plaintiffs. Id. at 1, 7. Finally, Defendant
maintains that the issues of liability and damages are completely separate in this case and,
therefore, bifurcation is appropriate. Id. at 1, 7-9.
In their Response, Plaintiffs argue that rather than conserving the parties’ resources,
bifurcation “would result in significantly increased costs to Plaintiffs as they live in
Washington and would need to travel to Colorado on separate occasions for two trials.”
Response [#71] at 4. In addition, Plaintiffs aver that Plaintiff Travis Rowland “has the right
to have this trial once and finally over.” Id. Plaintiffs further argue that they will be
prejudiced because they will have to update their experts’ opinions before the damages
portion of the trial because Plaintiff Travis Rowland continues to receive medical treatment
for his injuries. Id. at 5. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that “there is likely to be some overlap in
testimony in that there is often evidence of injury causation given the forces of a collision.
2
This testimony is often elicited from witnesses on liability.” Id. at 6-7.
In its Reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ “argument of prejudice militating
against bifurcation of the liability and damages phases of trial . . . does not outweigh the
economies and benefits of bifurcation to the Court and the parties.” Reply [#75] at 1.
Defendant further argues that the liability phase of the trial would take one or two days and
that the damages phase would take much longer because of the number of witnesses
identified by the parties. Id. at 2. Finally, Defendant attacks Plaintiffs’ argument that they
will be prejudiced by bifurcation. Id. at 3-4.
II. Analysis
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b), the Court may bifurcate the
issues in a case into separate trials “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
and economize . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); King v. McKillop, 112 F.Supp.2d 1214, 1221
(D. Colo. 2000). “Nevertheless, bifurcation is the exception, not the rule.” Am. Fam. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Haslam, No. 09-cv-00724-DME-MEH, 2011 WL 1042284, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar.
22, 2011) (J. Ebel) (citing advisory committee’s note). This Court has “broad discretion in
deciding whether to sever issues for trial . . . .” Green Constr. Co. v. Kan. Power & Light
Co., 1 F.3d 1005, 1011 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Bifurcation is
not an abuse of discretion if such interests favor separation of issues and the issues are
clearly separable.” Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 964 (10th
Cir.1993). “Regardless of efficiency and separability, however, bifurcation is an abuse of
discretion if it is unfair or prejudicial to a party.” Id. (citations omitted).
In this case, the issues of liability and damages are separable. Plaintiffs bring their
negligence claims on a theory that the USPS employee negligently caused the car
3
accident. As a result, they seek damages for physical injuries (“substantial medical bills,
pharmacy bills, therapy bills, and the like expenses”), past economic damages (including
household services), lost wages, future economic damages (“including household services,
medical bills, pharmacy bills, therapy bills, surgery bills,” and other expenses), past noneconomic damages, future non-economic damages, non-economic damages relating to
past and future disfigurement, and compensation for loss of consortium. Sched. Order
[#29] § 5. The testimony required to substantiate what happened on July 6, 2011, is very
different from the testimony that will be elicited in order to substantiate the damages sought
by Plaintiffs. For example, Defendant lists five witnesses who have been identified by the
parties to provide testimony regarding the issue of liability. Motion [#56] at 3. This includes
accident reconstruction experts retained by both sides, a police officer, the USPS employee
driving the tractor-trailer, and a USPS employee who took photographs at the scene of the
accident. Id. Defendant also explains that Plaintiffs have designated twenty expert
witnesses to testify regarding damages and Defendant has designated seven witnesses
to testify regarding damages. Id. at 4-5. In addition, it is anticipated that both Plaintiffs will
testify regarding damages. Id. at 5. Although Plaintiffs argue that “the final trial schedule
has not been completed and it is unlikely that all of the witnesses listed will testify,”
Response [#71] at 4, Plaintiffs do not argue that the number of witnesses they will present
regarding damages will decrease significantly or that there is any significant overlap
between the witnesses designated with regard to liability and damages. To the extent that
Plaintiff Travis Rowland may have to testify twice if the case is bifurcated, that is not a
significant burden given that 27 witnesses currently identified would not have to testify if the
case is bifurcated and liability is not found. Accordingly, the Court finds that bifurcation
4
would serve the interests of convenience, expedience, and economization. Therefore, the
Court turns to Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding any prejudice they may suffer if the case is
bifurcated.
Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced because both Plaintiffs would have to
attend both phases of the trial and that this would lead to increased stress, travel costs, and
time away from work. Id. at 4-5. While it is true that Plaintiffs, who reside in Washington,
would have to travel to Colorado for trial, if the case is bifurcated and Defendant is not
found liable, they will spend less money on travel and spend fewer days away from work.
In short, this argument cuts both ways in any case in which bifurcation is sought. Further,
to the extent Plaintiff Melanie Rowland is saved from having to testify in support of her loss
of consortium claim, she may actually experience less stress associated with this litigation
because she would not have to discuss the intimate details of her life with her husband.
In addition, to the extent that liability is found, the Court can schedule the second phase of
the trial relatively quickly after the liability phase concludes and will work with the parties
to find dates that work with their schedules. Therefore, the Court finds that bifurcation is
appropriate in this case because it will not prejudice Plaintiffs.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#56] is GRANTED. This case will be
tried in two phases: liability and damages. The liability phase of the trial shall commence
on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., and shall not last more than three (3)
days. If Defendant is found liable at the conclusion of the liability phase of the trial, the
5
Court will schedule the damages phase of the trial as soon as practicable.
Dated: August 20, 2015
6
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?