Rossi v. University of Utah et al
Filing
227
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - It is thereforeORDERED that Plaintiff may elicit testimony from Dr. Dudek regarding his wealth when Defendant is called as a witness during his case in chief. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 3/11/24. (jrj)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CHRISTINA ROSSI,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff,
v.
F. EDWARD DUDEK,
Case No. 2:15-CV-767-TS
Defendant.
District Judge Ted Stewart
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s inquiry to the Court regarding how evidence
of Defendant’s wealth, relevant to any award of punitive damages against Defendant, should be
presented in trial.
As Plaintiff indicated to the Court, Utah law provides that “[e]vidence of party’s wealth
or financial condition shall be admissible only after a finding of liability for punitive damages
has been made.” 1 However, because this issue is procedural in nature, the Court applies the
applicable federal rule rather than that of the state. 2
1
Utah Code Ann. § 78B-8-201(2).
2
See Simpson v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 901 F.2d 277, 283 (2d Cir.1990) (applying
Rule 42(b) instead of New York common law requiring that evidence of defendant’s wealth be
admitted only after jury has otherwise determined that punitive damages are appropriate); Stella
Est. of Miller v. Davis Cnty., No. 1:18-CV-00002-JNP, 2023 WL 5334188, at *8 (D. Utah Aug.
18, 2023) (“[T]he court’s decision to allow the trial to proceed without bifurcation was not in
error. Bifurcation would not have been convenient, expeditious, or economic. In fact, severing
the issue of punitive damages would have required additional time-consuming proceedings that
likely would have duplicated testimony already received on the question of liability.”).
1
Rule 42(b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a court may bifurcate separate
issues “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” In considering such
factors courts have “broad discretion in deciding whether to sever issues for trial,” 3 and they
abuse that discretion only “if it is unfair or prejudicial to a party.” 4
Considering the relevant factors, the Court finds bifurcation of evidence regarding
Defendant’s wealth is unnecessary. Presentation of evidence regarding Defendant’s wealth
would not present any unfairness or prejudice to any party. 5 Instead, bifurcation would
unnecessarily require additional time and resources from the Court and the jury, including
potentially requiring the jury to spend at least an additional day hearing evidence and
deliberating on that evidence.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff may elicit testimony from Dr. Dudek regarding his wealth
when Defendant is called as a witness during his case in chief.
DATED this 11th day of March, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge
3
Easton v. City of Boulder, 776 F.2d 1441, 1447 (10th Cir. 1985).
4
Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 964 (10th Cir. 1993).
5
Notably, Defendant does not object to introduction of such evidence as part of their case
in chief.
2
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?