California Expanded Metal Products Company et al v. James Klein et al

Filing 253

ORDER ADOPTING 252 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to file an overlength brief and the parties' stipulation to bifurcate issues related to damages. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

Case 2:18-cv-00659-JLR Document 253 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

CALIFORNIA EXPANDED
METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY,
et al.,

10
11
12

CASE NO. C18-0659JLR
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs,
v.

13

JAMES A. KLEIN, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

Before the court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Special

17

Master Mark Walters on (1) Plaintiffs California Expanded Metal Products Company and

18

Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for

19

leave to file an overlength brief for their upcoming motion for contempt; and (2) the

20

parties’ stipulated motion to bifurcate issues related to damages. (R&R (Dkt. # 252) at

21

1.) The parties agree on both the requested page limits and bifurcation. (See id. at 2-3.)

22

//

ORDER - 1

Case 2:18-cv-00659-JLR Document 253 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3

1

Having reviewed the R&R, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable

2

law, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety. (See id.) The parties’ briefing regarding

3

the motion for contempt shall adhere to the following page limits:

4

Brief
Opening Brief
Opposition Brief
Reply Brief

5

Page Limit
50
50
20

6
Moreover, the court agrees with the R&R that bifurcation of the damages phase is
7
appropriate here. A district court’s authority to bifurcate comes from Federal Rule of
8
Civil Procedure 42(b), which states, “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite
9
and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues.” Fed.
10
R. Civ. P. 42(b). The decision to bifurcate damages issues from liability issues is in the
11
sound discretion of the trial court. Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719 F.3d
12
1305, 1319-20 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Courts weigh several factors, including convenience,
13
prejudice, and judicial economy. Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C99-02506SI, 2008 WL
14
2074401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2008). Bifurcation is particularly appropriate when
15
resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire case. Karpenski v.
16
Am. Gen. Life Cos., LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1190 (W.D. Wash. 2012).
17
Here, the parties represent that bifurcation is convenient because “supplementation
18
of discovery related to damages will be required” given the recent addition of a non-party
19
to these proceedings. (R&R at 2; see 9/1/21 Order (Dkt. # 251 (sealed)) at 26.)
20
Moreover, determination of damages will only be necessary if the court finds contempt
21
and permits damages. (See id. at 2-3.) Under these circumstances, the court agrees that
22

ORDER - 2

Case 2:18-cv-00659-JLR Document 253 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3

1

bifurcation of damages issues would be convenient to all parties and promote judicial

2

economy. Should contempt be found, the parties shall be ordered to meet and confer

3

within seven (7) days of any such order and submit within fourteen (14) days a joint

4

status report setting forth a proposed schedule regarding how to proceed with the

5

damages phase.

6

Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. # 252) and

7

GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to file an overlength brief and the parties’ stipulation to

8

bifurcate issues related to damages.

9

Dated this 8th day of September, 2021.

10
11

A

12

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3