Porter v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government et al

Filing 297

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III. Joint motion to bifurcate liability and damages phases of trial will be granted. Separate order to be entered. cc:counsel (JAC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
KERRY PORTER

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00829-CRS

v.

LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY
METRO GOVERNMENT, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on joint motion of the Defendants, Rodney Kidd, Julius
Clark, and Gene Sherrard, to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of trial. For the following
reasons, the court will GRANT the Defendants’ motion.
I.

BACKGROUND
The underlying facts of this case concern the investigation, trial, and conviction of the

Plaintiff, Kerry Porter (“Porter”), for murder, as well as the ultimate dismissal of Porter’s
conviction fourteen years later. Porter now brings claims against the Defendants for alleged
illegal conduct related to the aforementioned investigation, trial, and conviction of the Plaintiff.
A jury trial is scheduled for July 9, 2018 with an expected trial length of three weeks.
(DN 285.) On October 4, 2017, the Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Bifurcate Liability and
Damages Phases of Trial. (DN 283.)
II.

STANDARD
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b) states that, “[f]or 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.” Rule 42(b) is intended to “enable the trial

judge to dispose of a case in a way that both advances judicial efficiency and is fair to the
parties.” In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 307 (6th Cir. 1988). The decision to try issues
separately is within the discretion of the court. Id. at 307.
When determining the appropriateness of bifurcating the issues of liability and damages
under Rule 42(b), the court looks to whether the issues of liability and damages are “so
inseparable as to require one unified trial to resolve them both.”

Helminski v. Ayerst

Laboratories, 766 F.2d 208, 212 (6th Cir. 1985) (citing Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin
Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494, 499-500 (1931)). Whether or not “the evidence pertinent to the two
issues is wholly unrelated” depends on the facts of each case. Id. (quoting 9 C. Wright & A.
Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2390 (1971)); See also Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d at 207
(“Essentially, the question is one that seems to depend on the facts of each case.”) (citation
omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION
The court finds that bifurcation is appropriate in this case because the issues of liability

and damages are so unrelated and separable that a unified trial on the issues is not necessary for a
just disposition. The evidence relevant to the issue of liability concerns the conduct of the
Defendants during the investigation and prosecution of Porter. Conversely, the evidence relevant
to damages concerns Porter’s time in prison and the effects of conviction and imprisonment on
his life.
In opposition to bifurcation, Porter provided a list of potential witnesses, claiming that
each may offer testimony on both liability and damages. However, the fact that a witness may
have knowledge pertaining to both liability and damages does not make the issues “completely
intertwined” and therefore inseparable in trial. That a witness potentially could testify in both

-2-

phases of the trial has no bearing on the Plaintiff’s “legitimate right to place before the jury the
circumstances and atmosphere of the entire cause of action.” Martin v. Heideman, 106 F.3d
1308, 1311 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Beverly Hills Fire Litig., 695 F.2d 207, 217 (6th
Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 929 (1983)). Further, the facts of this case are distinguishable
to those in Martin v. Heideman, wherein the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff’s evidence
concerning the full extent and severity of his injuries was integral to proving that the defendant
was liable for using excessive force. Id. at 1311-12. By contrast, evidence concerning Porter’s
time in prison and the conviction’s effect on his life is not integral to establishing the alleged
illegal conduct of the Defendants.
Lastly, the court is convinced that a bifurcated trial in this case will minimize risk of
prejudice to the parties. During the liability phase of the trial, the jury will only hear evidence
pertaining to the conduct of the Defendants and cannot be distracted by testimony and evidence
concerning Porter’s fourteen-year imprisonment. Further, judicial economy can be maximized
by empaneling the same jury in both the liability and damages phases of the trial. By using the
same jury, the parties will not be required to “recall each of [the] witnesses during the damages
trial to repeat their story of the case,” as Plaintiff contends. If the jury finds one or more of the
Defendants liable in the trial’s first phase, the same jury merely will reconvene for the damages
phase of the trial.
Because the issues of liability and damages are separable, and because separation of the
issues would reduce prejudice and promote efficiency, a bifurcated trial is appropriate in this
case.

-3-

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the court will GRANT the joint motion of the Defendants to

bifurcate the liability and damages phases of trial. Any evidence concerning liability will be
limited to the first phase of trial. If the jury finds one or more of the Defendants liable, the same
jury will reconvene to hear evidence concerning damages.
An order will be entered in accordance with this opinion.

January 22, 2018

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc

-4-