Landeros v. Schafer ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Jennifer Landeros, et al., No. 2:17-cv-02598-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. Samuel Schafer, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Daniel Landeros died in police custody after a car accident. See Joint Pretrial Stmt. at 2, 18 | ECF No. 26. The plaintiffs brought this action against the City of Elk Grove and several of the 19 | police officers who were on the scene at his death. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. They 20 | allege the officers used excessive force to restrain him and made negligent tactical decisions 21 | which led to his death by asphyxiation. See Joint Pretrial Stmt. at 2-3. They seek damages as his 22 | survivors and for his wrongful death, including punitive damages, among other relief. See Final 23 | Pretrial Order at 4-5, ECF No. 36; Compl. at 13. The city and its officers defend the force as 24 | reasonable and argue Landeros died of an unrelated heart attack. See Joint Pretrial Stmt. at 3. 25 A trial is scheduled to begin in about two months. See Min. Order, ECF No. 64. The 26 | parties expect to devote four or more days to evidence related to the defendants’ potential liability 27 | and one or two days to evidence related to the plaintiffs’ request for damages. See Defs.’ Trial 28 | Br. at 5-6, ECF No. 62; Pls.’ Tr. Br. at 9. The defendants have moved to bifurcate the trial into 1 two phases: one for liability, and one for damages. See generally Defs.’ Trial Br. The plaintiffs 2 oppose that motion. See generally Pls.’ Tr. Br. 3 A district court may “order a separate trial of one or more separate issues” if it concludes 4 that doing so would be convenient, “avoid prejudice,” or “expedite and economize” the 5 proceedings. Fed. R. Civ. 42(b). “Absent some experience demonstrating the worth of 6 bifurcation,” however, “‘separation of issues for trial is not to be routinely ordered.’” Hamm v. 7 Am. Home Prods. Corp., 888 F. Supp. 1037, 1039 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 8 Advisory Committee Notes to the 1966 Amendment). The party who moves to bifurcate a trial 9 has the “burden of proving that the bifurcation will promote judicial economy and avoid 10 inconvenience or prejudice to the parties.” Spectra-Physics Lasers, Inc. v. Uniphase Corp., 11 144 F.R.D. 99, 101 (N.D. Cal. 1992). The decision is left to the district court’s discretion. 12 Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc., 54 F.3d 570, 575 (9th Cir. 1995), aff’d on a separate question, 13 517 U.S. 830 (1996). 14 The defendants argue a bifurcated trial could save time. If the jury concludes the 15 defendants are not liable, then it would not need to make any decisions about the plaintiffs’ 16 damages. See Defs.’ Tr. Br. at 5–6. At most, however, only a day or two could be saved. 17 Neither party expects it would take any longer than that to present damages evidence. This 18 modest time savings is also less than certain. Some evidence, such as forensic medical testimony 19 and video or audio recordings of the events leading up to Landeros’s death, is likely relevant to 20 both the defendants’ culpability and the value of any damages award. This potential overlap 21 weighs “in favor of one slightly longer trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. CMC 22 Magnetics Corp., No. 06-04538, 2007 WL 219779, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2007). 23 The defendants also argue that if jurors hear evidence about both liability and damages in 24 the same part of the trial, they could be swayed inappropriately by sympathy for Landeros’s wife 25 and children. See Def. Tr. Br. at 6. In addition, the defendants expect to present unflattering 26 evidence about Landeros’s criminal and employment history and drug use in opposing the 27 plaintiffs’ request for damages. See id. at 6–7. They argue a bifurcated trial would remove this 28 potentially prejudicial evidence as well. See id. The plaintiffs do not share the defendants’ 1 concerns. See Pls.’ Tr. Br. at 8–9. In any event, “the court is not persuaded that the jury in this 2 case will be unable or unwilling to distinguish between evidence pertaining to liability or 3 culpability and evidence pertaining to the measure of damages. . . . [A]ny concerns about 4 potential prejudice . . . may be directly addressed, and the prejudice cured, with appropriate 5 limiting instructions.” Hamm, 888 F. Supp. at 1039. 6 The motion to bifurcate is denied. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: May 20, 2022.