Soo Line Railroad Company v. Werner Enterprises

Filing 120

ORDER denying 113 Motion to Bifurcate (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/10/2014. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-1089(DSD/JSM)
Soo Line Railroad Company, a
Minnesota corporation doing
business as Canadian Pacific,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Werner Enterprises,
Defendant.

Timothy R. Thornton, Esq. and Briggs & Morgan, PA, 80
South Eighth Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402,
counsel for plaintiff.
Mark A. Solheim, Esq. and Larson King, LLP, 30 East
Seventh Street, Suite 2800, St. Paul, MN 55101, counsel
for defendant.

This matter is before the court upon the motion to bifurcate
by defendant Werner Enterprises (Werner). Based on a review of the
file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons,
the court denies the motion.

BACKGROUND
This property-damage dispute arises out of a March 31, 2012,
collision between a truck owned by Werner and a train operated by
Soo Line Railroad Company, doing business as Canadian Pacific (CP).
The background of this action is set out in the court’s prior
orders, and the court recites only those facts necessary to resolve
the instant motion.

CP filed suit on May 3, 2012, seeking compensation for postcollision cleanup costs on theories of negligence, nuisance and
trespass.
the

driver

Werner later moved for summary judgment, arguing that
of

its

truck

colliding with the train.

became

incapacitated

moments

before

The court granted the motion as to CP’s

nuisance and trespass claims but found that summary judgment was
not warranted on the negligence claim.

See ECF No. 106.

Werner

now moves to bifurcate this trial into two separate phases, one for
liability and the other for damages.

DISCUSSION
I.

Bifurcation Standard
“District courts possess broad discretion to bifurcate issues

for purposes of trial.”
1201 (8th Cir. 1990).

O’Dell v. Hercules, Inc., 904 F.2d 1194,
The court may order separate trials “[f]or

convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
effect

of

bifurcation

Additionally, the court considers the
on

“the

preservation

of

constitutional

rights, clarity, judicial economy, the likelihood of inconsistent
results and possibilities for confusion.”
1202.

O’Dell, 904 F.2d at

The moving party has the burden “to demonstrate that

bifurcation would meet the objectives of the rule.”

Sobolik v.

Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC, No. 09-1785, 2011 WL
5374440, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 7, 2011).

2

A.

Convenience

Werner

first

argues

that

separate

trials

will

be

more

convenient because the liability and damages portion of this action
are distinct and involve no evidentiary overlap.
promotes convenience

when

separable

issues

Bifurcation

are “substantially

different” and when counsel, witnesses, parties and jurors will not
“face two trials with repetitious testimony.”

ADT Sec. Servs.,

Inc. v. Swenson, No. 07-2983, 2011 WL 4396918, at *7 (D. Minn.
Sept. 21, 2011) (citation omitted).

Werner fails to establish how

this proceeding is more complicated than other actions in which
liability and damages evidence is presented in a single trial. The
court finds that the interests of convenience do not weigh in favor
of bifurcation.
B.

Judicial Economy

Werner

next

argues

that

separate

trials

will

promote

efficiency because a jury verdict as to liability could preclude a
complex trial on damages. Bifurcation advances judicial economy if
it

saves

“considerable

time

and

unnecessary

expense

and

preparation” and “eliminate[s] the need for a future trial if one
of the parties is successful.”

Keister v. Dow Chem. Co., 723 F.

Supp. 117, 122 (E.D. Ark. 1989) (citing Beeck v. Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive
Corp., 562 F.2d 537, 541 (8th Cir. 1977)).
This action commenced over two years ago, and the parties have
spent significant time and resources litigating both liability and

3

damages.

At this point, separate trials will only slightly impact

preparation.

Moreover, Werner argues the damages phase of this

trial will be complex and lengthy, but does not adequately support
its argument.

Indeed, CP responds that its witnesses can testify

over the course of a few hours.

Werner fails to show that

bifurcation will advance judicial economy.
C.

Prejudice

Finally, Werner argues that a unified trial will cause undue
prejudice.

Specifically, Werner argues that the cleanup costs

incurred by CP are extensive and, as a result, evidence offered as
to damages may influence a jury decision on liability.
which

a

jury

could

be

unfairly

influenced

appropriately suited for bifurcation.”

by

Cases in

sympathy

“are

Marvin Lumber & Cedar Co.

v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 4-95-739, 2001 WL 228427, at *5 (D. Minn.
Feb. 27, 2001).

Nevertheless, the court is not convinced that

separate trials are required.

Negligence actions often involve

damages issues that invoke sympathy.

The court is confident that

a jury will view the evidence presented without prejudice or
confusion. Any risk to the contrary can be adequately addressed by
jury instructions.

See Sobolik, 2011 WL 5374440, at *1 (refusing

to bifurcate where jury sympathy would not prevent an objective
consideration of the evidence); i-Sys., Inc. v. Softwares, Inc.,
No. 02-1951, 2004 WL 742082, at *18 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2004)(noting
that potential prejudice can be cured through jury instructions).

4

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
motion to bifurcate [ECF No. 113] is denied.
Dated:

September 10, 2014
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

5