Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00620/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00620-58/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This case stems from allegations that Defendants acted improperly in executing a search 

warrant on Plaintiffs’ home, violating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Part of Plaintiffs’ claim is 

that Defendants’ actions caused mental suffering. Defendants’ expert Dr. Ricardo Winkel 

completed psychological examinations of both Plaintiffs, produced an expert report, and is 

expected to testify at trial regarding Plaintiffs’ mental state. The trial in this case is set to begin 

June 7, 2016. Due to a family matter that has recently arisen, Dr. Winkel will be out of the 

country at a memorial service from June 8 to June 20, 2016. Defendants have made a motion to 

bifurcate the trial into liability and damages phases or to continue the trial date; Defendants 

specify that they seek to retain the same jury for both phases of the trial. Doc. 372. Plaintiffs 

consent to a postponement of the trial but oppose bifurcation. Doc. 376. Before Dr. Winkel’s 

scheduling conflicts arose, Defendants had made a prior motion to bifurcate, arguing it would be 

efficient and avoid the possibility of damages testimony prejudicing the liability determination. 

Doc. 284. Magistrate Judge Gary Austin denied the motion. Doc. 312. 

“For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order a 

separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party 

claims.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 42(b). Bifurcating a trial into liability and damages phases is not 

uncommon. See, e.g. Boone v. Los Angeles, 522 Fed. Appx. 402, 403 (9th Cir. 2013); M2 

Software, Inc. v. Madacy Entm’t, 421 F.3d 1073, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005); Hill v. Clark, 2016 U.S. 

MICHAEL IOANE, et al,

Plaintiffs

v.

KENT SPJUTE, et al,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:07-CV-0620 AWI EPG

ORDER RE: MOTION TO BIFURCATE 

TRIAL OR TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL 

DATE

(Doc. 372)

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 379 Filed 03/31/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Dist. LEXIS 23366, *11 (E.D. Cal. 2016); Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12342, *13 n.2

(C.D. Cal. 2016); Petersen v. Costco Wholesale Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9030, *46-47 (C.D. 

Cal. 2016). As liability is a dispositive issue, a verdict in the first phase could “obviate[] the need”

for the second phase which “properly serve[s] the goals of Rule 42(b).” Allstate Ins. Co. v. 

Breeden, 410 Fed. Appx. 6, 9 (9th Cir. 2010). 

Defendants again argue that bifurcation would be efficient and avoid the possibility of 

damages testimony prejudicing the liability determination. The new factor to be considered is the 

unavailability of Dr. Winkel. In this case, Plaintiffs’ damages are solely based on mental 

suffering. Plaintiffs do not assert any physical injuries and their claims for economic damages 

were dismissed. Dr. Winkel’s testimony is central to Defendants’ case on this point.

Plaintiffs argue that presentation of the entire case, liability and damages, is likely to take 

less than a week so there would be little time savings in bifurcating the trial. Further Plaintiffs 

point out logistical concerns weighing against phasing. Plaintiff Michael Ioane, Sr. is currently 

incarcerated so having two trials could potentially create problems with transportation and his 

housing. Arranging to bring back the same jury for a second phase may also be difficult to 

schedule. 

In this case, the drawbacks of bifurcation outweigh the benefits. The entire case, liability 

and damages, is expected to be short. Given Dr. Winkel’s schedule, the second phase would have 

to take place several weeks after the first phase; the jury would not be able to immediately start the 

second phase of trial immediately after the first. Continuing the trial until a time when all 

witnesses are available is the preferable option. 

The trial date of June 7, 2016 is VACATED. The pretrial conference is to be held on April 

4, 2016. At that time, the parties are expected to be familiar with their own schedules and 

prepared to set a new date for trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 379 Filed 03/31/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case 1:07-cv-00620-AWI-EPG Document 379 Filed 03/31/16 Page 3 of 3