Chitwood v. Bacon et al

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOANNE CHITWOOD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
JOHN EDMUND BACON and )
KATHERINE BACON, )
) No. 3:20-cv-0122-HRH
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
O R D E R
Motion to Bifurcate the Trial
Plaintiff JoAnne Chitwood moves to bifurcate the trial in this case.1 This motion is
opposed by defendant Katherine Bacon.2 Oral argument was not requested and is not deemed
necessary.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) permits a court to order a separate trial of
separate claims or issues ‘[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and
economize.’” Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim, 840 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2016). “‘Rule
42(b) gives courts the authority to separate trials into liability and damage phases[,]’” which
1Docket No. 23.
2Docket No. 24.
-1-
Case 3:20-cv-00122-HRH Document 25 Filed 12/30/20 Page 1 of 3

is what plaintiff seeks here. Id. (quoting De Anda v. City of Long Beach, 7 F.3d 1418, 1421
(9th Cir. 1993)).
Plaintiff argues that bifurcating the trial between liability and damages would be more
economical for the court, the litigants, and the jurors because the liability trial will be short
and may eliminate the need for a trial on damages either due to a defense verdict or the
increased likelihood of settlement after liability has been established. Plaintiff also suggests
that bifurcation of liability and damages in this instance is especially appropriate given the
COVID-19 pandemic and the impact it is having on litigation and trials.
Plaintiff’s motion to bifurcate is denied. First of all, the motion is premature given
that substantial discovery has not yet taken place. See Krueger v. New York Tele. Co., 163
F.R.D. 446, 448 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (bifurcation motion “premature because discovery is not
yet complete”). In fact, discovery in this case does not close until August 2021.3 Secondly,
plaintiff’s contention that bifurcating the trial could eliminate the need to try damages is
nothing more than speculation. Plaintiff’s counsel’s experience in one other case4 does not
make it otherwise. Moreover, the “observation that a jury determination of no liability would
eliminate the need for a trial on damages is true in any negligence case—it does not advance
the cause of bifurcation.” Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc., 732 F. Supp. 1163, 1171
(N.D. Ga. 1990). Thirdly, contrary to plaintiff’s contention that bifurcation would be more
3Scheduling and Planning Order at 4, Docket No. 19.
4See Affidavit of Richard L. Harren in Support of Motion to Bifurcate the Trial,
appended to Motion to Bifurcate the Trial, Docket No. 23.
-2-
Case 3:20-cv-00122-HRH Document 25 Filed 12/30/20 Page 2 of 3

economical, a second trial could as easily create additional expense and inconvenience to all
involved. Finally, any impact that COVID-19 may be having on trials in this district by the
time this case is ready for trial in the latter part of 2021 is unknown.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 30th day of December, 2020.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
-3-
Case 3:20-cv-00122-HRH Document 25 Filed 12/30/20 Page 3 of 3