Brown v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 | Gayle W. Brown, No. 2:19-cev-01921-KJM-AC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER

13 Vv.

14 Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc., et al.,

1S Defendants.

16

17 This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to bifurcate and to exclude evidence.

18 | Mot., ECF No. 92. Specifically, defendants seek to bifurcate the jury trial on the issue of punitive

19 | damages and to exclude evidence regarding the financial condition of defendant Simpson Strong-

20 | Tie Company (Simpson). According to defendants, the motions are unopposed. /d. at 1. For the

21 | reasons below, the motions are denied without prejudice.

22 The court denies defendants’ motion to bifurcate. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)

23 | permits the separate trial of one or more issues “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to

24 | expedite and economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). On the one hand, the rule “confers broad

25 | discretion upon the district court to bifurcate a trial, thereby deferring costly and possibly

26 | unnecessary proceedings pending resolution of potentially dispositive preliminary issues.” Zenith

27 | Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 2017 WL 2861130, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2017) (citing

28 | Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1088 (9th Cir. 2002)). But courts are reluctant to

1 bifurcate proceedings where there is an overlap of factual issues between the claims. Hunter v.

2 City & Cty. of San Francisco, 2012 WL 4831634, at *10 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “The party requesting

3 bifurcation has the burden of proving that bifurcation is justified given the particular

4 circumstances.” Aoki v. Gilbert, 2015 WL 5734626, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2015).

5 Defendants argue potential prejudice would arise if the jury is asked to decide liability

6 during the same phase during which the jury determines whether punitive damages should be

7 awarded and if so in what amount. Mot. at 3. The court finds bifurcation would be inefficient

8 and wasteful given that the issues of liability and punitive damages share some common

9 questions of law and fact, with both turning on whether defendants exhibited racial bias. See

10 E.E.O.C. v. HBE Corp., 135 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 1998) (finding evidence of racially

11 discriminatory conduct to be relevant on both issues of liability and punitive damages in Title VII

12 cases). Moreover, defendants argue only in broad strokes that they will suffer prejudice, without

13 providing any details regarding Simpson’s financial condition. On this record, any concerns

14 about potential prejudice may be addressed by an appropriate jury instruction and verdict form.

15 See Hamm v. Am. Home. Prods. Corp., 888 F. Supp. 1037, 1039 (E.D. Cal. 1995).

16 The court also denies defendants’ motion to exclude. Defendants argue Simpson’s

17 financial condition is irrelevant to the issue of plaintiff’s liability under Federal Rules of Evidence

18 402. Mot. at 4. They further argue potential prejudice arising from the jury’s exposure to

19 Simpson’s financial condition outweighs the information’s probative value under Federal Rule of

20 Evidence 403. Id. For the same reasons the court declines to bifurcate trial, the relevance of

21 Simpson’s financial condition to the issue of punitive damages outweighs potential prejudice.

22 See TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443, 462 n.28 (1993) (holding evidence of

23 financial condition is “typically considered in assessing punitive damages”). Here again, an

24 appropriate jury instruction and well-crafted verdict form can alleviate potential prejudice to

25 defendants.

26 The court denies without prejudice defendants’ motions. Defendants may propose a

27 limiting instruction for the court’s consideration on the first day of trial.

28 /////

1 This order resolves ECF No. 92.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 DATED: June 23, 2022.

4