SEARLES v. BELANGER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARIE SEARLES, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:25-cv-00507-JCN
)
TROOPER HUNTER BELANGER, 	)
et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Belanger, a Maine State Police officer,
used excessive force when he unlawfully arrested Plaintiff in March 2024. 	Plaintiff also
alleges that Defendant Turcotte, Defendant Belanger’s supervising officer, failed to
supervise Defendant Belanger adequately in part because he did not properly investigate
and address Defendant Belanger’s excessive force history.
After 	Defendants 	filed 	their 	response 	to 	the 	complaint, 	the 	Court 	issued 	a
Scheduling Order. 	In response to the Scheduling Order, Defendants asked the Court to
bifurcate the discovery and anticipated dispositive motion practice on Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant Belanger from the discovery and motion practice on Plaintiff’s related
failure to supervise claim against Defendant Turcotte.1 (Motion to Bifurcate Discovery,
ECF No. 12.)
1 Defendants also asked the Court to modify the Scheduling Order deadlines. The Court will address that
request in a separate order.
Case 1:25-cv-00507-JCN Document 15 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Defendants 	contend 	that 	bifurcation 	would 	promote 	efficiency 	and 	judicial
economy because the parties and the Court would only have to address the claim against
Defendant Turcotte if Defendant Belanger engaged in excessive force on March 10, 2024.
Plaintiff argues that bifurcation would be inefficient and prejudicial to her because
Defendant Belanger’s history, training, and supervision are relevant to his conduct on
March 10 and, therefore, discovery on these issues is essential to the claims against
Defendant Belanger.
Although Defendants maintain that bifurcation could narrow the discovery that
might be required on the claim against Defendant Turcotte, the basic premise of Defendants’
efficiency argument is that the case would likely conclude on Defendants’ dispositive
motion on the claims against Defendant Belanger. However, if Defendants do not prevail
on their dispositive motion on their claims against Defendant Belanger, the parties would
have to engage in another round of discovery and, presumably, another cycle of motion
practice before trial. 	The subsequent discovery would likely include the depositions of
some witnesses who were deposed in the first phase of discovery. 	Furthermore, while
limiting the initial phase of discovery and motion practice as Defendants request could
potentially promote efficiency and judicial economy, the process could also result in the
need for Court intervention to address disputes regarding the scope of permissible
discovery, which disputes would have been avoided without bifurcation.
“Federal trial courts enjoy broad discretion in managing the pace of pretrial
proceedings, including the timing of discovery.” Vineberg v. Bissonnette, 548 F.3d 50, 54
(1st Cir. 2008). Because there is sufficient overlap between the information relevant to the
Case 1:25-cv-00507-JCN Document 15 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
excessive force claim and the evidence relevant to the supervisory liability claim (e.g.,
complaints regarding Defendant Belanger’s prior use of physical force during an arrest
would be discoverable as to both claims) and because of the potential for a more protracted
process (e.g., additional motion practice) and redundant discovery with bifurcation, the
Court is not persuaded that the requested bifurcation is warranted.2 The Court, therefore,
denies Defendants’ motion to bifurcate discovery.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 20th day of January, 2026.
2 In their reply memorandum in support of their contention that bifurcation is necessary because the
discovery on the supervisory claim could be extensive, citing some of the allegations in Plaintiff’s
complaint, Defendants assert that discovery related to the supervisory claim could include “multiple
additional depositions and voluminous written and document discovery.” (Reply at 2-3, ECF No. 14.) The
Court’s ruling on this motion should not be construed to define the scope of permissible discovery. If a
party believes a discovery initiative is objectionable, the party can seek the Court’s intervention in
accordance with District of Maine Local Rule 26.
Case 1:25-cv-00507-JCN Document 15 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>