Bayes et al v. Biomet, Inc. et al

Filing 294

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Court has denied Biomet's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' punitive damages claim. See Doc. 260 . The Court has further determined that Missouri law applies to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages. D oc 293 . The Court now addresses the procedure by which the Court will permit the presentation of evidence at trial pertaining to punitive damages. The Court will bifurcate the trial. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge Stephen R. Clark on 10/4/20. (JAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARY BAYES and PHILIP BAYES,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
BIOMET, INC., et al.,
Defendant(s).

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13-cv-00800-SRC

Memorandum and Order
The Court has denied Biomet’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ punitive
damages claim. See Doc. 260. The Court has further determined that Missouri law applies to
Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive damages. Doc 293. The Court now addresses the procedure by
which the Court will permit the presentation of evidence at trial pertaining to punitive damages.
The Court will bifurcate the trial.
I.

Bifurcation of Trial
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
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. When ordering a separate trial, the court
must preserve any federal right to a jury trial

Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Rule 611 vests the trial court with “reasonable control over the mode and
order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 611(a). Further, the
Federal Rules of Evidence permit the Court to exclude evidence if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of, among others, unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,
or wasting time. Fed. R. Evid. 403; cf. Fed. R. Evid. 102, 105.

1

The Court finds that bifurcating trial in this matter will avoid unfair prejudice and
confusion of the issues, expedite the trial, and avoid wasting time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 611(a); Fed. R. Evid. 403, 102, 105. Bifurcation will also aid in managing the
presentation of evidence, recognizing that in light of the remaining claims, some evidence is
admissible, if at all, only for punitive damages. See id.; see also Doc. 266 at 37-46; Doc. 288.
The first phase of trial will address liability and actual damages. If the jury reaches a verdict for
Plaintiffs after the first phase of trial, the trial will proceed to the punitive damages phase before
the same jury. The Court will not permit any evidence that relates only to punitive damages
during the liability-and-actual-damages phase of trial.
II.

Deposition Designations and Witness Exhibits
The parties initially submitted multiple hundreds of objections to deposition designations

and witness exhibits. See Docs. 255, 256, 261, and 262. After the Court instructed lead counsel
for the parties to meet and confer to resolve these objections, counsel disappointingly submitted
over 200 objections for the witnesses expected to testify on just the first two days of this threeweek trial. Doc. 289. The Court finds that many of these objections fall clearly within the scope
of the Court’s prior rulings on the parties’ motions in limine. Many more objections will be
resolved by the Court’s foregoing Order on bifurcation.
Accordingly, the Court rules on all objections to all deposition designations and all
witness exhibits consistent with its prior rulings on the parties’ motions in limine.
The Court rules on all objections to deposition designations and witness exhibits
consistent with the foregoing Order regarding bifurcation of trial as to punitive damages. For
example, the Court has previously ruled that sales and marketing materials may be relevant and

2

admissible as to punitive damages. In light of the Court’s bifurcation ruling, this evidence will
be admissible (if at all) only during the punitive damages phase of trial.
The Court expects counsel to adhere to these rulings in their presentation of evidence,
whether by testimony or in exhibits. The Court will allow counsel to file the spreadsheets of
objections and responses so that they are part of the record. To the extent any objections to
deposition designations remain unresolved based on these rulings, the Court will address and rule
on any remaining objections to the testimony of witnesses expected to testify on the first two
days of trial and related exhibits when Court convenes at 8:00 a.m. on October 5, 2020, and
thereafter if and as necessary, outside of the presence of the jury.

Dated: October 4, 2020.

STEPHEN R. CLARK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3