Board of Water Works v. Sac County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 57

ORDER re 51 MOTION to Stay Pending Certification of Questions to Iowa Supreme Court (Expedited Relief Requested). Defendants Motion to Stay, as it relates to discovery deadlines for Counts III through X, is granted. The defendants Motion to Stay, a s it relates to discovery deadlines for Counts I and II is denied. I reserve ruling on the defendants Motion to Stay, as it relates to the trial date pending the Iowa Supreme Courts resolution of my Certification Order. DMWWs Motion to Bifurcate Coun ts I and II is denied. Once the Iowa Supreme Court resolves my Certification Order, the parties shall notify me within 15 days by filing a joint status report indicating, if and how, further proceedings should be scheduled in this court. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 1/19/16. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
BOARD OF WATER WORKS
TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF DES
MOINES, IOWA,
No. C 15-4020-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAC COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AS TRUSTEES OF
DRAINAGE DISTRICTS 32, 42, 65, 79,
81, 83, 86, and CALHOUN COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS and SAC
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AS JOINT TRUSTEES OF DRAINAGE
DISTRICTS 2 AND 51 and BUENA
VISTA COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS and SAC COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS JOINT
TRUSTEES OF DRAINAGE
DISTRICTS 19 and 26 and DRAINAGE
DISTRICTS 64 and 105,

ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY
DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
PENDING CERTIFICATION OF
QUESTIONS TO THE IOWA
SUPREME COURT

Defendants.
___________________________
Before me is the defendants’ January 13, 2016, Motion to Stay Pending
Certification of Questions to Iowa Supreme Court (docket no. 51) requesting expedited
relief. In compliance with Local Rule 7(j), the parties jointly contacted a member of my
staff via telephone on January 14, 2016, to “alert the assigned federal judge immediately
that the pleading or motion has been filed and that expedited relief is being requested.”
L.R. 7(j).

In this Motion, the defendants request that I enter an order staying all

proceedings of this case in district court pending the resolution of my January 11, 2016

Order Certifying Questions to the Iowa Supreme Court (docket no. 50) (“Certification
Order”). Defendants request that the stay apply to the discovery deadline, summary
judgment deadline, trial date, and all other deadlines set forth in the Court’s Scheduling
Order and Discovery Plan (docket no. 18) and Trial Management Order (docket no. 19).
The plaintiff, Des Moines Water Works (“DMWW”), filed its Resistance to Defendants’
Motion to Stay Pending Certification of Questions to Iowa Supreme Court (docket no.
53) on January 15, 2016.
This case is currently scheduled for a bench trial to start during the two-week
period beginning August 8, 2016. The deadline for the completion of discovery is March
1, 2016. The deadline for dispositive motions is April 1, 2016. The defendants state
that they will likely be taking a large number of depositions in the coming weeks,
beginning with depositions scheduled for January 26 and 27, 2016, which is why they
requested expedited relief.
I find that a partial stay of district court proceedings, as to the counts underlying
the questions that were certified to the Iowa Supreme Court, would avoid the investment
of the parties’ resources into answering questions which will turn on a resolution of state
law. So, the deadlines for discovery, except for Counts I (Clean Water Act) and II (Iowa
Code Chapter 455B), are stayed pending the resolution of the Certification Order. That
is to say, the discovery deadline for Counts I and II are not stayed and the deadline for
discovery which relates to Counts III through X is stayed. Discovery as to Counts I and
II will be conducted in any event, and the minor factual overlap of Counts I and II with
Counts III through X should not preclude discovery on Counts I and II. Similarly, the
current dispositive motions deadline of April 1, 2016, except for Counts I and II, is
stayed.
I reserve ruling on the defendants’ Motion to Stay as it relates to the existing,
August 8, 2016, trial date pending one of three possible outcomes: (1) If the Iowa

Supreme Court has resolved my Certification Order before trial, such that there are no
viable state law claims remaining, the parties should be prepared to proceed with trial on
August 8, 2016; (2) if the Iowa Supreme Court has resolved my Certification Order
before trial, such that there are viable state law claims remaining, I will consider a motion
to continue, and if appropriate, may set a new trial date, so that all claims may be
consolidated and resolved in a single trial; (3) if the Iowa Supreme Court has not resolved
my Certification Order 60 days before the existing trial date, that is on or before June 9,
2016, then the parties shall jointly contact my judicial assistant, Jennifer Gill, at
[phone] or via email to [e-mail] to select a new trial date.
DMWW requests a bifurcation of Counts I (Clean Water Act) and II (Iowa Code
Chapter 455B) from the remaining claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) and to go to
trial on Counts I and II on the originally scheduled trial dates. The remaining counts
would then be scheduled for trial after the Iowa Supreme Court addresses the certified
questions.
“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court
may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims,
counterclaims, or third-party claims.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). I have previously laid out
the factors to consider in a bifurcation analysis:
Courts have recognized that many factors may be relevant to the
determination of whether or not to bifurcate proceedings pursuant to Rule
42(b). See O’Dell v. Hercules, Inc., 904 F.2d 1194, 1201-02 (8th Cir.
1990) (“In exercising discretion, district courts should consider the
preservation of constitutional rights, clarity, judicial economy, the
likelihood of inconsistent results and possibilities for confusion.”); accord
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, No. 4:00-CV1073, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20737, 2006 WL 1026992, *2 (E.D. Mo.
2006) (“Multiple factors govern whether bifurcation is appropriate in any
given case, including the separability of the issues; simplification of
discovery and conservation of resources; prejudice to the parties; and the
effect of bifurcation on the potential for settlement.”) (citing F & G

Scrolling Mouse, L.L.C. v. IBM Corp., 190 F.R.D. 385, 387 (M.D.N.C.
1999)); Eischeid v. Dover Constr., Inc., 217 F.R.D. 448, 466 (N.D. Iowa
2003) (citing O’Dell, 904 F.2d at 1201-02, as identifying pertinent factors,
and noting, further, that Rule 42(b) expressly identifies “expedition” and
“economy” as pertinent factors). However, the key issue is whether
bifurcation is necessary to avoid prejudice. Athey v. Farmers Ins.
Exchange, 234 F.3d 357, 362 (8th Cir. 2000) (because the movant could
not show prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing
to bifurcate claims); see also Kuiper v. Givaudan, Inc., 602 F.Supp.2d
1036, 1055 (N.D. Iowa 2009) (reciting the above standards).
Shannon v. Koehler, 673 F. Supp. 2d 758 (N.D. Iowa 2009).
DMWW argues that staying all district court proceedings will be prejudicial to it
and the remedy to this prejudice is bifurcation. DMWW states that the delay caused by
a stay on hearing Counts I and II will be prejudicial, because the “unprecedented nitration
conditions in its source waters . . . are expected to continue to challenge DMWW’s
infrastructure and personnel.” Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Resistance to Defendants’
Motion to Stay 3. By permitting discovery to continue as to Counts I and II and leaving
the current trial date in place, pending the resolution of my Certification Order by the
Iowa Supreme Court, I find no reason to bifurcate Counts I and II of this case.
THEREFORE, defendants’ Motion to Stay, as it relates to discovery deadlines for
Counts III through X, is granted. The defendants’ Motion to Stay, as it relates to
discovery deadlines for Counts I and II is denied. I reserve ruling on the defendants’
Motion to Stay, as it relates to the trial date pending the Iowa Supreme Court’s resolution
of my Certification Order. DMWW’s Motion to Bifurcate Counts I and II is denied.
Once the Iowa Supreme Court resolves my Certification Order, the parties shall notify
me within 15 days by filing a joint status report indicating, if and how, further
proceedings should be scheduled in this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of January, 2016.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA