Lozier v. Quincy University Corporation et al

Filing 177

ORDER entered by Judge Sue E Myerscough on 2/5/2024: Counter-Defendant Lozier's Motion to Bifurcate (d/e 154 ) is DENIED. Counter-Defendants' Motion to Realign Parties (d/e 155 ) and Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal are GRANT ED (d/e 172 ). Counter-Plaintiff Holzgrafe's Motion to Allow Remote Testimony (d/e 156 ) is GRANTED as to non-party witnesses Bell, Krass, Carlson, Anderson and Moore. Counter-Plaintiff Holzgrafe is DIRECTED to file a Reply, on or before Febru ary 16, 2024, to Mr. Lozier's response providing additional rationale as to why Mr. Prow and Mr. Vayser's testimony should be taken remotely. Counter-Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File Document Under Seal (d/e 158 , 167 ) are GRANTED for the reasons stated in the motion.(BL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
DANIEL R. LOZIER, II,
Counter-Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN HOLZGRAFE,
Counter-Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)
Case No. 18-3077

)

OPINION AND ORDER
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Before the Court are Counter-Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate
Punitive Damages, Motion to Realign Parties, and Motion for Leave to
File Document Under Seal (d/e 154, 155, 172). Additionally,
Counter-Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Remote Testimony and two
Motions for Leave to File Document Under Seal. (d/e 156, 158, 167).
I.

Motion to Bifurcate (d/e 154)

On January 16, 2024, Counter-Defendant Lozier filed a Motion
to Bifurcate Damages seeking to bifurcate the trial into two phases.
(d/e 154). Specifically, Counter-Defendant seeks to hold two separate
trials, one to determine whether Mr. Holzgrafe is entitled to
compensatory and/or punitive damages and a second trial to
Page 1 of 6

determine a specific amount of punitive damages. Further, Mr. Lozier
seeks an order barring any evidence regarding his financial
condition. On January 25, 2024, Counter-Plaintiff filed his response
in opposition noting having a second trial solely to introduce evidence
of Lozier’s financial condition would be a waste of judicial economy.
The Court agrees given the sheer number of identical witnesses,
exhibits, and the likely duplicative nature of the testimony that would
be offered. A second trial would not further judicial economy.
Therefore, Counter-Defendant’s Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED.
II.

Motion to Realign Parties (d/e 155)

On January 16, 2024 Counter-Defendant Lozier filed a Motion
to Realign Parties (d/e 155) seeking to label Mr. Holzgrafe as the
“Plaintiff” and Mr. Lozier as the “Defendant” moving forward in this
action. Mr. Lozier argues this is appropriate given he no longer has
any ongoing claims against Mr. Holzgrafe or any other Defendant,
and that he will be prejudiced without this change. Id. In the
alternative, Counter-Plaintiff Holzgrafe argues this change is
unnecessary and that the designation of parties as it currently exists
should stand. (d/e 175). Specifically, Mr. Holzgrafe argues that he

Page 2 of 6

will be prejudiced by being named the Plaintiff when he was “fighting
back” after Mr. Lozier initiated litigation first. Id.
As the parties provided, realignment of the parties is
permissible and lies within the discretion of the trial court. Fink v.
DeClassis, 132 F.R.D. 511, 512 (N.D. Ill 1990). Realignment may also
be appropriate when the original plaintiff’s claims drop out and only
the original defendant’s counterclaims remain. Karahodzic v. JBS
Carriers, Inc., 881 F.3d 1009, 1014 (7th Cir. 2018).
Here, although the original Plaintiff is no longer litigating
claims, the designations provide some context as this litigation
proceeds. Further, Mr. Lozier alleges he will be prejudiced but does
not say in what way. Mr. Holzgrafe takes issue with a change in
designation but a change from “Counter-Plaintiff” to “Plaintiff” is
nominal. Lastly, based on the exhibit and witness lists provided by
the parties, Mr. Holzgrafe is likely to testify regarding the history of
this case and his desire to “fight” the previous claims against him.
Therefore, Counter-Defendant Lozier’s motion to realign parties
(d/e 155) is GRANTED.
III.

Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal (d/e
172).
Page 3 of 6

Counter-Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Document Under
Seal is GRANTED.
IV.

Motion to Allow Remote Testimony (d/e 156)

On January 16, 2024, Counter-Defendant Holzgrafe filed a
Motion seeking leave of Court to allow remote testimony of seven
witnesses (d/e 156). This request is based on the reduction of costs
and also convenience to the witnesses. Counter-Plaintiff Lozier
opposes this motion as to non-party witnesses Danyil Vayser and Jim
Prow. As to Mr. Prow, Mr. Lozier argues that given his distance from
the courthouse of 113 miles, the witness should appear at the
courthouse in person, as it is not an undue burden or substantial
expense. Regarding Mr. Vayser, counsel cites his difficultly with
English as a second language, the possible need for a translator and
his home being 191 miles from the courthouse as his rationale for
Mr. Vayser’s in person appearance.
Counter-Defendant

Holzgrafe’s

Motion

to

Allow

Remote

Testimony is GRANTED as to non-party witnesses Bell, Krass,
Carlson, Anderson and Moore. As to non-party witnesses Prow and
Vayser, Counter-Defendant Holzgrafe is DIRECTED to file a Reply, on
or before February 16, 2024, to Mr. Lozier’s response providing
Page 4 of 6

additional rationale as to why Mr. Prow and Mr. Vayser’s testimony
should be taken remotely.
V.

Motions for Leave to File Document Under Seal. (d/e
158, 167).

Counter-Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File Document Under
Seal are GRANTED for the reasons stated in the motion.

CONCLUSION
Counter-Defendant Lozier’s Motion to Bifurcate (d/e 154) is
DENIED. Counter-Defendants’ Motion to Realign Parties (d/e 155)
and Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal are GRANTED
(d/e 172).
Counter-Plaintiff Holzgrafe’s Motion to Allow Remote Testimony
(d/e 156) is GRANTED as to non-party witnesses Bell, Krass,
Carlson, Anderson and Moore. Counter-Plaintiff Holzgrafe is
DIRECTED to file a Reply, on or before February 16, 2024, to Mr.
Lozier’s response providing additional rationale as to why Mr. Prow
and Mr. Vayser’s testimony should be taken remotely. CounterPlaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File Document Under Seal (d/e 158,
167) are GRANTED for the reasons stated in the motion.
Page 5 of 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: February 5, 2024.
FOR THE COURT
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough____________
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 6 of 6