Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Vizcay et al

Filing 461

ORDER Denying 459 Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate. Defendants' Motion is Denied with Prejudice. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 4/4/2014. (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY;
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY;
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE FIRE
AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY;
and ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY
INSURANCE COMPANY (F/K/A DEERBROOK
INSURANCE COMPANY, SUCCESSOR BY
MERGER TO NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY
COMPANY),
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:11 -CV-804-EAK-EAJ

SARA C. VIZCAY, M.D.; BEST CARE MEDICAL
CENTER, INC.; CALEB HEALTH CARE, INC.;
FLORIDA REHABILITATION PRACTICE, INC.
(F/K/A DANA MEDICAL CENTER, INC.);
GLOBAL DIAGNOSTIC CENTER, INC.;
PERSONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; P.V.C.
MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; and REGIONAL
ENTERPRISES FOR HEALTH CORPORATION,
Defendants.

/
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIALS
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 42
This cause comes before the Court on Defendants’, Best Care Medical Center, Inc.,
Florida Rehabilitation Practice, Inc. (f/k/a Dana Medical Center, Inc.), and P.V.C. Medical
Center, Inc. (the “moving Defendants”) Motion for Separate Trials Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 42 (“Motion”), (Doc. # 459), filed April 4, 2014. The Court, sua sponte. finds
no merit to the Motion, and hereby DENIES the Motion with prejudice.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint April 12, 2011—nearly three years prior to the date of this
Order. (Doc. #1). Counsel for the moving Defendants filed her notice of appearance May 2,
2012—nearly two years prior to the date of this Order. (Doc. #92). The Court notes the
Defendants were continually and ably represented since May 2,2011. (Doc. # 5). On July 25,
2012, Plaintiffs moved for a continuance of this trial. (Doc. # 148). The Court extended
discovery, expert disclosure, mediations, and dispositive motion deadlines, and also continued
the trial to May 6,2013. (Doc. # 155).
On October 2,2012, Defendants filed their first Motion to Bifurcate Trials, (Doc. # 186),
to which Plaintiffs replied October 16,2012. (Doc. # 200). On November 16,2012, the Court
denied the Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Trials, finding Plaintiffs’ reply persuasive. (Doc. #
222). On April 1,2013, Plaintiffs moved for a continuance of the May 6, 2013, trial, (Doc. #
312), which Defendants opposed, (Doc. #317), and the Court rescheduled for October 7,2013.
(Doc. # 380). On October 9,2013, the trial was continued and rescheduled for February 3,2014.
(Docs. ## 399,409).
On January 23, 2014, Plaintiffs and Defendants moved this Court to continue the trial for
a fourth trial date, (Doc. #411), which the Court granted January 27,2014, and reset the trial for
April 7,2014. (Doc. #412). In the order, the Court specifically advised and warned the parties
there would be no further continuances, id.,_which was affirmed in an order advising of the trial
calendar on March 24,2014. (Doc. # 429).
On March 24,2014, the Court noticed the parties for a Status Conference set for March
27,2014, at 2:00 PM, (Doc. # 428), which the parties jointly requested to be rescheduled for
April 1,2014, at 2:00 PM, (Doc. # 432), and the Court granted. (Doc. # 433). On March 31,

2

2014, the Court ruled on all outstanding motions in limine, including an Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion in Limine With Respect to Evidence and Cross Examination of Unrelated
Criminal Charges Against Norge Romero or Other Witnesses. (Doc. # 446).
On April 1,2014, the Court conducted the noticed and rescheduled Status Conference,
and addressed specific issues with respect to potential Fifth Amendment implications, the use of
a court-authorized interpreter, Plaintiffs’ objection to the split defense teams between the
“wholly owned clinics” and the clinics Defendant Vizcay supervised as a medical director,
computer and cell phone usage, proposed jury instructions regarding the term “wholly owned,”
and the Plaintiffs’ contention of civil conspiracy and the Defendants’ objection thereto. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Court addressed attorneys for all parties and inquired whether
there were any outstanding issues before trial could commence. Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
advised there were no outstanding issues at the conclusion of the Status Conference. Attorneys
for the “wholly owned” Defendants and Defendant Vizcay advised there were no outstanding
issues at the conclusion of the Status Conference. Finally, attorneys for the moving Defendants
advised there were no outstanding issues at the conclusion of the Status Conference.
On April 4,2014—on the eve o f the trial—the moving Defendants have moved this
Court again to bifurcate the trial. As their bases, the moving Defendants allege a lack of
bifurcation would result in confusion of the issues, Norge Romero’s and other witnesses’
invocation of the Fifth Amendment would be unfairly prejudicial testimony, and the prejudicial
nature of submitting the claims “en masse” to a jury.
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides the Court permissive, but not mandatory,
authority to bifurcate the trial. The Defendants have not submitted any new bases addressing a

3

purpose for which the Court should grant a bifurcation, and the Court finds Plaintiffs’ former
bases for denying this Motion as persuasive today as it did nearly eighteen months ago. The
parties were warned well in advance this trial would proceed April 7,2014, and that no
continuances would be granted—either directly or through a procedure such as what Defendants
propose here. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the moving Defendants Motion is DENIED with
PREJUDICE. This trial will proceed April 7,2014, at 10:00 AM.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 4th day of April, 2014.

4