ZHANG et al v. FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION et al

Filing 99

ORDER granting 78 Motion in Limine to the extent set forth in Order; granting 85 Motion to Bifurcate to the extent set forth in Order. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 10/18/2018 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
YANZHUO ZHANG and GUOQIANG WU,
Plaintiffs,

*
*

vs.

*

FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION and
CLIFFORD JAY TUCK,

*

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-55 (CDL)

*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
The Court reserved ruling on Defendants’ motion to bifurcate
the trial of Plaintiffs’ compensatory damages claims and their
claim for attorney’s fees based on Defendants’ alleged stubborn
litigiousness (ECF No. 85) and Defendants’ related motion to
exclude evidence of Defendants’ liability from the compensatory
damages phase if the trial is bifurcated (ECF No. 78).

The parties

have been unable to reach a stipulation regarding the issues
presented by the motions, thus requiring the Court to decide the
matter.

As the Court indicated at the pretrial conference,

bifurcation is warranted.
claim

for

attorney’s

Some evidence related to Plaintiffs’

fees

is

not

relevant

to

Plaintiffs’

compensatory damages claims, but some evidence regarding these
distinct claims overlaps.

Accordingly, the Court orders that the

trial of these claims shall be bifurcated as follows.

1

Although Defendants have admitted liability (i.e., breach of
duty and proximate cause), the parties shall be allowed to present
evidence in the compensatory damages phase that would be admissible
on the issues of breach of duty and causation as if Defendants had
not admitted liability, as long as the evidence would be admissible
on

the

Defendants’

stubborn

litigiousness

or

lack

thereof.

Evidence that is relevant solely on the issue of Defendants’
stubborn litigiousness, or lack thereof, shall not be admissible
during the compensatory damages phase, but shall be admissible in
the

second

stage

after

compensatory damages.
one

will

be

and

damages;

the

if

jury

has

returned

a

verdict

on

So, the standard for admissibility in phase

whether

litigiousness

the

the

duty,

evidence

breach

evidence

is

of

is

relevant

duty,

only

to

proximate

relevant

to

litigiousness, then it shall be admitted in phase 2.

stubborn
cause

and

stubborn
The Court

does not intend to rule in advance of trial on what specific items
of evidence meet this standard.

Counsel shall object at trial

when they deem it appropriate.
To avoid confusion, the Court intends to instruct the jury at
the beginning of the trial that there are two separate categories
of claims and that they will be bifurcated but there will be some
evidence that overlaps.

That instruction will be consistent with

the following: “Ladies and Gentlemen, Plaintiffs make two types of
claims in this lawsuit.

They seek to recover compensatory damages

2

to compensate them for the injuries they suffered as a result of
Defendants’ conduct that caused the wreck giving rise to this case.
And they also seek to recover their costs of litigation, including
attorney’s fees, that they incurred as a result of having to
litigate their claims.

Litigation expenses, including attorney’s

fees, are not automatically recoverable. In order to recover those
expenses, Plaintiffs must prove that Defendants were stubbornly
litigious.

Because some of the evidence relevant to stubborn

litigiousness may not be relevant on the issue of Plaintiffs’
compensatory damages, we are going to try that part of the case
separately.
And

then

thereafter.

We will try the compensatory damages phase first.
try

the

stubborn

litigiousness

phase

immediately

There may be some evidence that is relevant to both

phases and thus you will be able to consider evidence introduced
during the compensatory damages phase when you consider the issue
of stubborn litigiousness in phase two.”

If the parties wish to

provide a stipulated instruction instead of the one indicated
above, they should do so at least five days before the start of
trial.
Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate (ECF No. 85) and Defendants’
Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence as to Defendants’ Liability
(ECF No. 78) are granted to the extent set forth above.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of October, 2018.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4