EEOC

Filing 81

ORDER - The parties' agreement regarding bifurcation of discovery and trial, as set forth in Filing 76 -1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-7, is adopted and approved. The court will rule on the EEOC's motion to bifurcate (filing 38 ), but only for purpose s of addressing the issue of how punitive damages should be handled in light of the bifurcation of this proceeding. Defendant's request for leave to submit supplemental briefing is denied. Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to bifurcation (filing 61 ) is denied as moot. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
V.
JBS USA, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:10CV318

ORDER

On December 31, 2010, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) filed a motion to bifurcate discovery and trial in this case (filing 38). Since the
filing of the motion, the parties have agreed to bifurcate discovery and trial into two phases,
Phase I (pattern or practice claims) and Phase II (individual claims and relief). The parties
submitted a proposed bifurcation agreement along with their Rule 26 Planning Report and
request that the court approve the proposed agreement. (Filing 76-1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-7.)
The court will do so.
The parties’ proposed agreement does not, however, address the treatment of punitive
damages. The parties cannot agree on whether punitive damages should be considered in
Phase I or Phase II of the bifurcated proceeding. Consequently, in their proposed order, the
parties have requested that the court rule on this issue. Accordingly, the court will proceed
to rule on Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate, but only to the extent the motion involves the
question of how punitive damages should be handled in light of bifurcation.
Defendant asks that the parties be permitted to submit supplemental briefing
addressing the question of how punitive damages should be handled. Because the court
believes that the issue has been adequately briefed, Defendant’s request will be denied.
IT IS ORDERED:

1.

The parties’ agreement regarding bifurcation of discovery and trial, as set
forth in Filing 76-1 at CM/ECF pp. 1-7, is adopted and approved;

2.

The court will rule on the EEOC’s motion to bifurcate (filing 38), but only
for purposes of addressing the issue of how punitive damages should be
handled in light of the bifurcation of this proceeding;

3.

Defendant’s request for leave to submit supplemental briefing is denied;

4.

Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition
to bifurcation (filing 61) is denied as moot.

May 26, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

2