Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03062/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03062-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY MURPHY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C04-3062 TEH 

ORDER RE BIFURCATION

The Court has carefully considered the parties’ papers, the parties’ comments at the Pre-Trial

Conference, and the record in this case. After weighing the issues of prejudice and efficiency, the Court

concludes that if cumulative testimony relating to damages is eliminated, then the balance tips against

bifurcation in this case. Given that Plaintiff represented at the Pretrial Conference that he had no objection

to eliminating cumulative evidence in general, and in particular, cumulative testimony by witnesses regarding

the “Plaintiff’s injuries and the impact those injuries have had on the plaintiff’s life,” the Court denies

Defendants’ motion to bifurcate. Consistent with Plaintiff’s representations, however, Plaintiff shall be

limited to calling one other witness to testify to the above “quality of life” issues (in addition to himself). 

Plaintiff may, of course, also present the videotape prepared on this issue. Plaintiff may also wish to

consider whether it is necessary to call two medical experts given that Plaintiff indicated at the Pretrial

Conference that one of the experts could address all the necessary issues.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 11/10/05 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:04-cv-03062-TEH Document 81 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 1