Quilez-Velar et al v. Ox Bodies, Inc. et al
Filing
400
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 391 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 390 Motion to Bifurcate; granting 398 Motion for Leave to File Document. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Silvia Carreno-Coll on 11/20/2014.(NBB)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
BERARDO A. QUILEZ-VELAR,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIV. NO.: 12-1780(SCC)
OX BODIES, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A jury trial in this case is currently scheduled to begin on
February 2, 2015, and Defendants now ask that it be bifurcated
into separate trials on liability and damages. See Docket No.
390; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b) (authorizing bifurcated trials
“[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and
economize”). Defendants justify their request on grounds that
bifurcated trials would be more economical and would avoid
prejudice to Defendants. For the reasons stated below, I deny
Defendants’ request.
QUILEZ-VELAR v. OX BODIES
Page 2
Before considering the merits of Defendants’ motion, it is
useful to note two well established facts: first, this Court has a
great deal of discretion in deciding a bifurcation motion, see
Gonzalez-Marin v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 845 F.2d
1140, 1145 (1st Cir. 1988) (“A Rule 42(b) motion is a matter
peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court . . . .”); and
second, “the moving party bears the burden of proving that
separate trials are justified,” Maldonado Cordero v. AT&T, 190
F.R.D. 26, 29 (D.P.R. 1999); see also 9A WRIGHT & MILLER,
FEDERAL PRAC. & PROC. § 2388 (3d ed.) (“The party seeking
separate trials . . . has the burden of proving that separation of
the cases is necessary.”). As to economy, Defendants rely
principally on a claim that the parties’ liability and damages
witnesses are entirely separate, or at least nearly so. See Docket
No. 390, at 2. Plaintiffs deny this, pointing in particular to the
fact that three of their five expert witnesses will testify as to
both damages and liability. See Docket No. 397, at 2.1 As
1.
Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion was originally due on
October 27, 2014, on which date Plaintiffs filed a motion for an
extension of time. See Docket No. 391. Defendants oppose the extension
and ask that their motion to bifurcate be deemed unopposed. See
Docket No. 393. While Defendants are right that a party’s request for an
extension of time is not self-executing, the parties are aware that first
QUILEZ-VELAR v. OX BODIES
Page 3
Defendants point out, see Docket No. 398-1, at 2, Plaintiffs do
not explain the degree of this overlap, but neither do Defendants—who have the burden here—explain it away. I necessarily find, then, that Defendants have failed to meet their burden.
Furthermore, I am unwilling to bifurcate trial in this case on
economical grounds if doing so might require Plaintiffs to pay
to have their stateside experts come twice to Puerto Rico for
trial.
Defendants also argue that bifurcation is proper to avoid
the possibility of their being prejudiced by evidence that would
“inevitably create sympathy for the plaintiffs.” Docket No. 3981, at 2. In essence, Defendants argue that this sympathy might
render the jury unable to weigh the liability evidence fairly. See
Docket No. 390, at 3. But juries routinely hear liability and
damages testimony in a single trial, and Defendants point to
nothing to explain why that fact should create an especially
requests for extension of time under circumstances like this are granted
as a matter of course. Moreover, this Court has a preference for
deciding matters on the merits when possible; Plaintiffs’ oversight is
forgiven and its request for an extension is retroactively GRANTED.
For precisely the same reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’
tendered reply, Docket No. 399, is DENIED, and Defendants’ motion
for leave to file that reply, Docket No. 398, is GRANTED.
QUILEZ-VELAR v. OX BODIES
Page 4
great likelihood of prejudice in this case specifically. Moreover,
courts regularly rely on jury instructions to cure and prevent
potential prejudice of this type, and the Court intends to
employ such instructions in this case.
Because Defendants have failed to show that separate trials
are necessary to serve the needs of economy or to prevent
prejudice, their motion to bifurcate the damages and liability
questions, Docket No. 390, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 20th day of November, 2014.
S/ SILVIA CARREÑO-COLL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?