Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04480/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04480-6/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

HAKIM MUHAMMAD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-04480 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

BIFURCATE AND TO STAY

DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendants’ motion to

bifurcate trial and to stay discovery on Plaintiffs’ claims under Monell v. Department of Social

Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for disposition

without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing set for May 25, 2007 is HEREBY VACATED. Having carefully

reviewed the parties’ papers, considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the

Court hereby denies Defendants’ motion. 

BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against nine individual officers

and the City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) and Chief of Police, Heather Fong, in her

official capacity (“Chief Fong”). Plaintiffs are suing the individual officers for excessive force,

false arrest, and are asserting related state-law claims against them. Plaintiffs are suing the City

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 42 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 3
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

2

and Chief Fong under Monell, alleging negligent hiring, retention, training, supervision, and

discipline. 

ANALYSIS

The question of whether to bifurcate a trial is a matter committed to this Court’s

discretion. See, e.g., Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 961 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) provides:

The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when

separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a

separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim,

or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims,

counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate

the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the

Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States.

As is set forth in the rule, when exercising its discretion a court may consider such

factors as convenience, the need to avoid prejudice and confusion, and judicial economy. Id.;

see also Spectra-Physics Lasers, Inc. v. Uniphase Corp., 144 F.R.D. 99, 101 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

According to Defendants, Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual officers are

straightforward, while the claims against the City and Chief Fong are more complicated and

require significantly more discovery. Defendants argue that adjudication of the Monell claims

would be unnecessary if a jury finds that the officers did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional

rights. Defendants further contend that the individual officers may be unfairly prejudiced if the

claims against them are tried simultaneously with the claims against the City and Chief Fong,

because evidence irrelevant to the claims against them, such as evidence of unrelated instances

of false arrest and excessive force, would be admitted at trial for the Monell claims.

At this point in the litigation, it is not yet clear whether Plaintiffs will be successful on

any of their claims. The Court finds that it would be most efficient to move forward on all of

Plaintiffs’ claims simultaneously. Therefore, at this time, the Court does not believe that

judicial economy would be served by hearing the claims against the individual officers and the

claims against the City and Chief Fong seriatum, rather than concurrently. Further, the Court is

not persuaded at this time that bifurcation is required to avoid prejudice to the individual

officers. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for bifurcation. This ruling is

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 42 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

without prejudice to Defendants renewing their motion to bifurcate trial after the summary

judgment stage. By that time it will be clear whether Plaintiffs’ claims against the individual

officers and their claims against the City and Chief Fong will be tried, and the parties should

have more information regarding the evidence that supports their respective cases.

Because the Court finds that bifurcation is unwarranted, the Court also finds that staying

discovery on Plaintiffs’ claims against the City and Chief Fong is unnecessary, and therefore

DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay discovery as well.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04480-JSW Document 42 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 3