HUTTO v. HADDOCK et al
Filing
11
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 4/25/2011. (jcw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
GARY HUTTO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CASE NO. 5:10-cv-333/RS-CJK
HON. BOBBY HADDOCK, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
UORDER
Before me is defendant’s Motion for Separate Trial (Doc. 9) and plaintiff’s
Response in Opposition (Doc. 10).
In this case, plaintiff alleges that the individual defendant used excessive force
against plaintiff in this civil rights case. Plaintiff also alleges that the official capacity
defendant is liable for the acts of the individual defendant. The official capacity
defendant’s liability is predicated on a finding on liability of the individual defendant
(See Doc. 1).
Defendants propose to try the claims against the individual defendant first, and
then proceed to discovery and trial against the official capacity defendant only in the
event of a finding of individual liability. They suggest that this two trial strategy would
avoid prejudice to the parties and be most efficient (Doc. 9, p.3-4).
Courts may order separate trials “for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to
expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). This decision is left to the discretion of
trial courts. Beckford v. Dep't of Corr., 605 F.3d 951, 961 (11th Cir. 2010) (reviewing
district court denial of claim severance for abuse of discretion). Weighing these factors,
I find that it is most reasonable to proceed with all of the defendants in one trial.
First, the relationship between the defendants, along with their common legal
representation, implies that their interests are aligned. Trying the defendants together is
not prejudicial to the parties because all defendants have an identical motive to discredit
the allegations. Further, having a common attorney, it makes sense that both defendants
be present at trial so that they can develop and participate in a common strategy for
defense.
Second, judicial economy is best served by keeping all of the claims together. It is
possible that unnecessary discovery and trial preparation may be conducted regarding the
official capacity claim. However, the impact of this is lessened because the claims arise
out of the same events and likely have significant overlap in testimony and evidence.
I
recognize that the official capacity claims may be obviated by a finding that the
individual defendant is not liable. However, the effort required to present those official
capacity claims and defenses is far outweighed by the potential burdens and duplicative
court resources required for a second trial.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Motion for Separate Trial (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
2. The trial shall proceed in the following manner:
a. All defendants shall be party to the trial, which will proceed in two phases.
b. Liability against the individual defendant will be tried in the first phase.
c. In the event of finding individual liability, a second phase will try damages
against the individual defendant and liability and damages against the official
capacity defendant.
ORDERED on April 25, 2011.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?