McCoy v. City of Vallejo ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KORI MCCOY, individually and as Co- No. 2:19-cv-001191-JAM- Successor-in-Interest to Decedent CKD 12 WILLIE MCCOY; et al., 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 14 v. MOTION TO BIFURCATE 15 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 On February 9, 2019, City of Vallejo Police Officers fatally 18 shot 20-year-old Willie McCoy fifty-five times while he sat 19 unconscious in his vehicle. McCoy’s siblings (collectively, 20 “Plaintiffs”) sued the City of Vallejo, the former chief of 21 police, and the individual police officers involved in the 22 shooting (collectively, “Defendants”). See Compl., ECF No. 1. 23 Defendants initially moved to stay the proceedings and discovery 24 pending the completion of a criminal investigation into the 25 officers’ actions or, alternatively, bifurcate and defer trial 26 and discovery for the Monell claim. See Mot. to Stay and 27 Bifurcate (“Mot.”), ECF No. 51. However, the criminal 28 1 investigation has since concluded. Accordingly, Defendants 2 withdraw their request to stay and, instead, only request that 3 the Court bifurcate and defer the Monell claim. See Andrew 4 Rawcliffe Suppl. Decl., ECF No. 54. 5 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 6 Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate.1 7 8 I. BACKGROUND 9 On June 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed six causes of action 10 against Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California 11 law. See Compl. The Court presumes the parties are familiar 12 with the events leading up to this suit, so the specific facts 13 will not be reduced into writing again here. See Order at 2, ECF 14 No. 12. Following the Court’s order on Defendants’ motion to 15 dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. See First 16 Am. Compl. (“FAC”), ECF No. 14. Among the amended causes of 17 action are claims against the individual officers for their use 18 of deadly force and a Monell claim against the City of Vallejo 19 and former Chief Andrew Bidou, in his official capacity, alleging 20 McCoy’s death was part of a pattern and practice of similar 21 violations. See FAC ¶¶ 47–69. Defendants request that the Court 22 bifurcate the individual officers’ trial from that of the City of 23 Vallejo. Mot. at 14–18. Defendants further request that the 24 Court stay discovery on the Monell claim against the City of 25 Vallejo. Mot. at 19–20. Plaintiffs oppose both requests. See 26 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for February 9, 2021. 1 Opp’n, ECF No. 55. 2 3 II. OPINION 4 Courts may order separate trial of claims or issues “[f]or 5 convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize.” 6 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Courts have broad discretion over 7 whether to bifurcate. Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252, 1261 8 (9th Cir. 1982). Where the court has the power to order 9 separate trials, “[i]t is implicit that the court also [has the] 10 power to limit discovery to the segregated issues.” Ellingson 11 Timber Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 424 F.2d 497, 499 (9th 12 Cir. 1970). In addition, courts have considerable latitude to 13 craft protective orders during discovery. See Gray v. First 14 Winthrop Corp., 133 F.R.D. 39, 40 (N.D. Cal. 1990) (citing Fed. 15 R. Civ. P. 26(c)). Nonetheless, such orders are only 16 appropriate upon a showing of good cause by the party seeking 17 one. Id. “A party seeking a stay of discovery carries the 18 heavy burden of making a ‘strong showing’ why discovery should 19 be denied.” Gray, 133 F.R.D. at 40 (quoting Blankenship v. 20 Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)). 21 Defendants argue bifurcation is necessary to avoid 22 confusing the jury, to shield the individual officers from undue 23 prejudice, and to promote judicial economy and convenience. See 24 Mot. at 16–18. Plaintiffs argue the segregation of discovery 25 will be futile and bifurcation will, instead, exacerbate the 26 Court’s crushing caseload. See Opp’n at 5–11. Plaintiffs’ 27 argument wins the day. The Eastern District of California is 28 suffering from an ongoing judicial emergency that has been 1 considerably worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The Eastern 2 District is made up of 34 counties and is equivalent in size to 3 about half the eastern seaboard of the United States. However, 4 compared with other districts with a similar population size 5 nationwide, it has been allocated the fewest judgeships by far— 6 six—and there are currently only four active District Judges. 7 At present, with 1,118 weighted filings per judge, the district 8 ranks among the highest average weighted caseloads nationwide. 9 Considering the Eastern District’s overwhelming caseload, 10 bifurcation would not promote judicial economy and convenience. 11 On the contrary, two separate discovery phases, motion hearings, 12 and trials involving the same incident would be highly 13 inefficient. Moreover, the parties are approximately six months 14 into discovery and Defendants have already disclosed 15 approximately 13,000 documents, including documents related to 16 Plaintiffs’ Monell claim. Patrick Buelna Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 55- 17 6. And, as Plaintiffs point out, it is possible that discovery 18 related to the Monell claim is similarly discoverable for the 19 claims against the individual officers and vice versa. See 20 Opp’n at 6–7. As a result, segregating discovery would be 21 complicated and the resulting phases of discovery would likely 22 be somewhat duplicative. 23 Moreover, the Court does not find Defendants’ arguments 24 regarding prejudice to the individual officers and confusion to 25 the jury to be compelling. Instead, the Court finds that both 26 27 2 See In Re Approval of the Judicial Emergency, http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Judicial%20Counc 28 il%20Ea%20Cal%20Emergency%20Decl_%2004_16_2020.pdf. 1 sides ignore a persuasive reason not to bifurcate. An 2 underlying constitutional violation by an individual officer is 3 a prerequisite to establishing municipal liability. See City of 4 Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (“[N]either 5 Monell . . . nor any other of our cases authorizes the award of 6 damages against a municipal corporation based on the actions of 7 one of its officers when in fact the jury has concluded that the 8 officer inflicted no constitutional harm.”). However, “[i]t 9 does not follow [] that the trial on individual officer 10 liability should be bifurcated from the trial on plaintiffs’ 11 municipal liability claim.” Motley v. City of Fresno, Cal., 12 2020 WL 3642502, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 6, 2020). Bifurcation is 13 a case-specific inquiry that requires a court to compare the 14 claims against an individual officer to the claims against the 15 municipality, as well as the evidence to be presented at trial 16 in support of each. Id. 17 Upon doing this analysis, courts often bifurcate when they 18 find that “the evidence relevant to the claims against the 19 individual officers does not overlap in any meaningful way with 20 the evidence relevant to the claims against the [municipality].” 21 Boyd v. City of San Francisco, 2006 WL 680556, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 22 Mar. 14, 2006); see also Estate of Lopez v. Suhr, 2016 WL 23 1639547, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2016) (“Plaintiffs’ claims 24 against Chief Suhr are conceptually distinct from their claims 25 against the Officers; their ratification theory involves only 26 post-shooting facts, while their failure to train theory 27 involves pre-shooting facts that do not directly relate to Perez 28 Lopez’s case.”); Jones v. City of Chicago, 1999 WL 160228, at *3 1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 1999) (“Another factor we consider when 2 faced with a motion to bifurcate is whether the evidence 3 required to prove the respective claims will overlap.”). That 4 is not the case here. Much of the evidence that will be 5 presented to establish that the five officers are individually 6 liable overlaps with the evidence required to establish that 7 McCoy’s death was part of a pattern and practice of similar 8 violations. In fact, Plaintiffs cannot do the latter without 9 presenting the former. Defendants ignore this and, instead, 10 only deal with the opposite scenario. See Reply at 8–9, ECF No. 11 56 (“[I]f individual officers’ liability is disproven, there can 12 be no trial of Monell claims.”). But the Court cannot ignore 13 the fact that Plaintiffs may be successful in establishing the 14 officers’ individual liability and, were the claims bifurcated, 15 Plaintiffs would then have to present the same evidence against 16 the five officers in a trial on municipal liability. This 17 scenario would certainly not serve judicial economy. 18 In sum, bifurcation would be highly inefficient, and 19 Defendants have failed to establish good cause to stay 20 discovery. Accordingly, the Court declines to bifurcate the 21 trials and will not segregate discovery on Plaintiffs’ Monell 22 claim. 23 24 III. SANCTIONS 25 Defendants exceeded the Court’s 5-page limit on reply 26 memoranda. See Reply; see also Order re Filing Requirements 27 (Order), ECF No. 4-2. Violations of the Court’s standing order 28 require the offending counsel (not the client) to pay $50 per nee enn nee enn ene non nnn ee EE SO SIE EN 1 | page over the page limit to the Clerk of the Court. Order at 1. 2 Moreover, the Court will not consider arguments made past the 3 page limit. Id. In total, Defendants’ reply memorandum exceeded 4 the Court’s page limit by 2 pages. Defendants’ counsel must 5 therefore send a check payable to the Clerk for the Eastern 6 | District of California for $100.00 no later than seven days from 7 the date of this order. 8 9 Iv. ORDER 10 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 11 Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 3, 2021 14 kA 18 teiren staves odermacr 7008 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28