BERNADIN v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.

Filing 72

MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/17/2018. The Court held a telephonic status conference and discussed with the parties Defendants' motion to amend the Case Management Plan and to bifurcate discovery. Defendants seek to enlarge deadlines and to stay all discovery related to the ADA claim until this Court rules on the pending m otion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Pursuant to those discussions, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. [Filing No. 70 .] The Court grants the unopposed motion to amend the CMP to enlarge deadlines. However, the Court denies Defendants' request to bifurcate and stay any discovery related to Plaintiff's disability discrimination claim. See Order for additional information and established deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
EMMANUEL JACKSON BERNADIN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL INC.,
HOST INDIANAPOLIS I LP,
HST LESSEE KEYSTONE LLC d/b/a
SHERATON INDIANAPOLIS HOTEL,
KEYSTONE HOTEL PROPCO LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-02753-TWP-TAB

ORDER ON MAY 17, 2018, TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE
In this action, Plaintiff alleges racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and disability
discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disability Act. Plaintiff is an African
American male who uses a service animal to accommodate his disability, and he claims he was
subjected to discrimination when he checked in to Defendants’ hotel and later at the hotel café.
On May 17, 2018, the Court held a telephonic status conference and discussed with the parties
Defendants’ motion to amend the Case Management Plan and to bifurcate discovery.
Defendants seek to enlarge deadlines and to stay all discovery related to the ADA claim until this
Court rules on the pending motion to dismiss the ADA claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Pursuant to those discussions, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in
part. [Filing No. 70.]
The Court grants Defendants’ unopposed motion to amend the CMP to enlarge deadlines
as follows: (1) Plaintiff must file expert disclosures by December 10, 2018; (2) Defendants must
file expert disclosures by January 9, 2019; (3) both parties must file final witness and exhibit lists
by January 2, 2019; (4) both parties must file any dispositive motions by November 9, 2018; (5)

discovery on liability must be completed by September 9, 2018; and (6) expert discovery and
discovery related to damages must be completed by March 11, 2019. The parties request the
enlargement so they may depose a large number of witnesses, some of which may require crosscountry travel. The new dispositive motion deadline is within seven months of the current trial
date which may need to be moved.
Defendants seek to bifurcate the ADA and § 1981 claims. Defendants argue the claims
can be separated easily without impeding judicial economy. They contend that the incidents
giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims happened on separate days and involved largely separate
witnesses. They contend that at least fifteen depositions involve witnesses that either only have
knowledge related to the § 1981 claim or whose testimony may be moot if the Court grants the
motion to dismiss the ADA claim. Therefore, the witnesses would not need to be questioned
about both claims and bifurcation could be more efficient. Plaintiff counters that the two
incidents are intertwined, and that some witnesses have broader responsibilities over hotel
operations independent of whether they were present during any one incident. Therefore,
bifurcating discovery would be difficult and less efficient because Plaintiff would likely have to
repeat depositions.
Bifurcation is not appropriate in this instance. “Bifurcation of discovery may be
appropriate when separating issues will avoid unnecessary time and expense and further the
interest of expedition . . . .” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Valeant Pharms. Int’l, No. 1:08-cv-1720-SEBTAB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114511, at *5 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). “The decision to bifurcate discovery is a matter committed to the
discretion of the trial court as it has the inherent power to control its docket.” Id. at *6; see

2

Sattar v. Motorola, Inc., 138 F.3d 1164, 1171 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[D]istrict courts have broad
discretion in matters related to discovery.”).
Bifurcation would likely cause judicial and economic inefficiencies because the two
claims are intertwined. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff expressly contends that both types of
discrimination occurred in tandem by alleging that Plaintiff was treated differently than
“Caucasians with a service animal.” [Filing No. 31, at ECF p. 11, ¶ 60.] Based on this
allegation, some witnesses would likely be deposed for both claims. Requiring multiple
depositions of the same witness could lead to disputes over whether a question relates to the
ADA claim or the § 1981 claim, and would be unnecessarily duplicative. This would jeopardize
judicial efficiency, not promote it. Bifurcating discovery on Plaintiff’s intertwined ADA and
§1981 claims would be inefficient and result in additional costs.
For these reasons, the Court grants the unopposed motion to amend the CMP to enlarge
deadlines. [Filing No. 70.] However, the Court denies Defendants’ request to bifurcate and stay
any discovery related to Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim.
Date: 5/23/2018

_______________________________
Tim A. Baker
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: All ECF-registered counsel of record by email.

3