McGowan et al v. Murphy-Brown, LLC

Filing 212

ORDER denying 146 Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 5/29/2018. (Herrmann, L.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No. 7:14-CV-182-BR
WOODELL MCGOWAN, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MURPHY-BROWN, LLC d/b/a
)
SMITHFIELD HOG PRODUCTION
)
DIVISION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion for a bifurcated trial. (DE # 146.)
Plaintiffs have filed a response in opposition. (DE # 208.)
Defendant requests the issues of liability for and the amount of compensatory damages be
tried separately from the issues of liability for and the amount of punitive damages. On
defendant’s similar motion in a related case, the court considered whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D30 mandated a bifurcated trial and whether to exercise its discretion to bifurcate under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b).
North Carolina General Statute section 1D-30 provides in relevant part,
“Upon the motion of a defendant, the issues of liability for compensatory
damages and the amount of compensatory damages, if any, shall be tried
separately from the issues of liability for punitive damages and the amount of
punitive damages, if any.” On a defendant’s motion pursuant to this statute, the
court must bifurcate the compensatory damages phase of the trial from the
punitive damages phase of the trial under the procedures set forth therein. Land v.
Land, 687 S.E.2d 511, 517 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). However, “[b]ifurcation is
primarily procedural in nature; therefore, federal procedural law applies.”
Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc. v. Saga Freight Logistics, LLC, No. 3:13-CV-529RJC-DCK, 2015 WL 13610653, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 9, 2015) (citing Rosales v.
Honda Motor Co., 726 F.2d 259, 260 (5th Cir. 1984)). Accordingly, the court is
not required to grant defendant’s motion in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D30 and will consider whether bifurcation is warranted under Rule 42(b). See id.

The federal rule permits bifurcation “[f]or convenience, to avoid
prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).
The Court is permitted considerable discretion in exercising its
powers under the rule.
Notwithstanding the broad discretion conferred by
Rule 42(b), the bifurcation of issues and the separate trial
of them is not the usual course of events. Nothing else
appearing, a single trial will be more expedient and
efficient. The party requesting separate trials bears the
burden of convincing the court that such an exercise of its
discretion will (1) promote greater convenience to the
parties, witnesses, jurors, and the court, (2) be conducive to
expedition and
economy, and (3) not result in undue prejudice to any party.
F & G Scrolling Mouse, L.L.C. v. IBM Corp., 190 F.R.D. 385, 387 (M.D.N.C.
1999) (citations omitted).
McKiver v. Murphy-Brown, LLC, No. 7:14-CV-180-BR (DE # 155) (emphasis and alterations in
original). The court denied the motion, concluding that defendant had not its burden for
bifurcation under Rule 42(b) because the evidence regarding compensatory and punitive
damages overlaps and “bifurcation would not promote convenience or be conducive to
expedition and economy.” Id.
Nonetheless, defendant urges the court to bifurcate by applying Rule 42(b) in a manner
consistent with state law. Defendant also argues that bifurcation is appropriate as the jury in the
related case heard inflammatory evidence that was relevant only to the punitive damages issues,
resulting in unfair prejudice to it in the form of an “unconstitutional” jury verdict of $5,000,000
in punitive damages for each plaintiff. The court declines to bifurcate the trial on either of these
grounds.
While under certain circumstances it might be appropriate to bifurcate to be consistent
with state law, such as § 1D-30, such circumstances are not present here. The court remains
convinced that in this case, the compensatory damages evidence overlaps with the punitive
damages evidence. As such, bifurcation would not be beneficial. As for defendant’s suggestion
2

that the verdict on punitive damages in the related case supports bifurcation, the court points out
that, applying North Carolina law (the constitutionality of which the court has recognized), it will
reduce the amount awarded to each plaintiff for punitive damages to $250,000. See id. (DE #
277).
For the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED.
This 29 May 2018.

__________________________________
W. Earl Britt
Senior U.S. District Judge

3