Potts v. Hendrix et al

Filing 84

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying without prejudice 67 Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Discovery. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 12/7/2018. (cags, Deputy Clerk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IVAN POTTS,
Plaintiff,
v.
EVODIO C. HENDRIX,
WAYNE EARL JENKINS,
MAURICE KILPATRICK WARD and
BAL TIM ORE CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

Civil Action No. TDC-16-3187

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Ivan Potts has filed suit against Defendants Evodio C. Hendrix, Wayne Earl
Jenkins, Maurice Kilpatrick Ward ("the Police Officer Defendants"), and the Baltimore City Police
Department ("BCPD") asserting claims pursuant to 42 U .S.C.

S

1983 against the Police Officer

Defendants for unlawful detention and excessive force based on his allegations that they stopped
and detained him without justification, assaulted him, and planted a handgun on his person to
justify their actions. As a result of the allegedly planted handgun, Potts was charged with illegal
possession of a firearm, convicted on March 2, 2016, and sentenced to eight years of imprisonment.
After Potts had served approximately two years of his sentence, his conviction was vacated on
April 12,2017 at the request of the Baltimore City State's Attorney.
On September 19, 2016, before his conviction was vacated, Potts filed his original
Complaint in this case alleging

S

1983 claims against the Police Officer Defendants.

September 19, 2017, Potts filed the Second Amended Complaint in which he added a

On

S 1983 claim

against BCPD pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436
U.S. 658 (1978), alleging that the BCPD's acts and omissions amounted to a de facto policy of
condoning constitutional violations by its officers.
BCPD has filed a Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Discovery, arguing that discovery and trial
on the claims against BCPD should be bifurcated from discovery and trial on the claims against
the Police Officer Defendants.

Potts opposes the Motion.

Having reviewed the parties'

submissions, the Court finds no hearing necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons
set forth below, the Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal after the close of
discovery.
A court may order separate trials of one or more separate issues or claims "[f]or
convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Only one
of these criteria must be met to justify bifurcation. Houseman v. Us. Aviation Underwriters, 171
F.3d 1117, 1121 (7th Cir. 1999). Once a criterion is satisfied, the court "must be satisfied that the
decision to bifurcate does not unfairly prejudice the non-moving party." Id. However, "separation
of issues for trial is not to be routinely ordered," Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) advisory committee's note
to 1966 amendment; rather, "[e]ach case must be considered in light of its particular facts and
circumstances."

Marryshow v. Town of Bladensburg, 139 F.R.D. 318, 319 (D. Md. 1991). The

decision on bifurcation is committed to the trial court's sound discretion. Houseman, 171 F.3d at
1121.
Here, BCPD requests that the Court hold a trial on the Police Officer Defendants' liability
first, then hold a separate trial on BCPD's liability in the event that the Police Officer Defendants
are found liable. BCPD first argues that such bifurcation is appropriate because Potts's Monell
claim can succeed only if there is first a finding of individual liability against at least one of the

2

Police Officer Defendants.

Thus, BCPD asserts, bifurcation would preserve judicial resources

because a jury verdict in favor ofthe Police Officer Defendants would obviate the need for a trial
on BCPD's liability.

However, bifurcation would not necessarily be more efficient, because if

Potts were to prevail at a separate trial against the Police Officer Defendants only, it is likely that
the witnesses and evidence presented in that first trial would be relevant to the claim against BCPD
and would therefore need to be presented a second time in the trial against the BCPD.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, there are several indicators that Potts has a
more substantial likelihood of success against the Police Officer Defendants than in the typical

S

1983 case, including the facts that (1) the State's Attorney requested that Potts's conviction be
vacated; (2) the Police Officer Defendants have pleaded guilty to racketeering conspiracy charges
and either admitted to or were found to have planted evidence on innocent people to manufacture
charges; and (3) the United States Department of Justice ("DOl") conducted a review of BCPD
policies and practices and identified various unconstitutional

practices, including a pattern or

practice of making unconstitutional stops, using excessive force, and having inadequate policies,
training, and supervision to deter misconduct.

Where, under the facts of this case, there is a

significant likelihood that Potts will be able to establish liability against one or more Police Officer
Defendants, it may be more efficient to have a single discovery period and a single trial on all
claims, rather than having two discovery periods and trials. At a minimum, it is premature to
conclude that bifurcation of trials would advance, rather than undermine, judicial economy.
BCPD also asserts that, because the Monell claim will likely require Potts to introduce
evidence of prior police misconduct, separate trials are warranted to avoid prejudice to the Police
Officer Defendants and possible confusion by the jury.

BCPD further argues that it might be

unduly prejudiced by the presentation evidence of individual liability against the Police Officer

3

Defendants in the same trial. At this point, however, the Police Officer Defendants have not moved
for bifurcation or otherwise claimed that a joint trial would unfairly prejudice them. It is not clear
how the BCPD would be unfairly prejudiced by ajoint trial because evidence of the Police Officer
Defendants' alleged misconduct would likely be admissible in a separate trial on the Monell claim.
At a minimum, it is premature to conclude that either the Police Officer Defendants or the BCPD
would be unduly prejudiced by a joint trial.

Nor is there yet any basis to conclude that the jury

would be confused by the evidence in a manner that could not be remedied by relevant jury
instructions.

See generally Conn. v. Johnson, 460 U.S. 73, 85 n.14 (1983) (noting that courts

"must assume that juries for the most part understand and faithfully follow instructions").

There

is, however, a risk that bifurcation would unfairly prejudice Potts because it would impose a
significant barrier to his ability to pursue a claim against BCPD to vindicate systemic concerns, as
he would have to undertake two separate trials to do so. Without a fuller understanding of the
record after discovery on all issues, the Court cannot properly evaluate whether the potential
prejudice to particular parties weighs for or against bifurcation in this particular case.
As for discovery, under the specific circumstances of this case, where DOJ has already
collected documents relevant to BCPD's policies and practices, and Potts has stated that his
discovery requests on the Monell claim will be limited to a request for the previously assembled
documents from the DOJ investigation, there is no compelling need to bifurcate discovery to
conserve the resources of the parties.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Discovery,
ECF No. 67, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Should the Parties require more time to

complete discovery on the Monell claim in light of the Court's determination, they should file a

Motion requesting a modification of the scheduling order, with a joint proposal for a revised
schedule, within 21 days of the date ofthis Order.

Date: December 7,2018
THEODORE D. CHUA
United States District Ju

5

e