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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUZ HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF NAPA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-09-02782 EDL

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO

BIFURCATE AND MOTION TO

COMPEL; DENYING REQUEST TO

STAY ALL MONELL-RELATED

DISCOVERY

This action arises out of the arrest of Plaintiff Luz Hernandez on April 1, 2008 by police

officers from the City of Napa and the Napa County Sheriff’s Department. 

On July 20, 2010, the Court held a hearing on Defendants City of Napa, Chief of Police

Melton, and Officer Bender’s (“City Defendants”) Motion to Bifurcate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Municipal

Liability Claim. The City Defendants’ Motion also requested that discovery on Plaintiff’s Monell

municipal liability claim be stayed. The City Defendants’ motion argues that trial of Plaintiff’s

Monell claim should be bifurcated because the evidence relating to municipal liability is irrelevant

unless Plaintiff first establishes a violation of her constitutional rights, and is separate and distinct

from her claims against Officer Bender. The City Defendants further argue that Plaintiff’s

presentation of evidence involving other incidents, unrelated to her arrest or the officers involved, in

an attempt to show a policy or practice, deliberate indifference, or ratification would be unduly

prejudicial and unfairly influence the jury’s evaluation of Officer Bender’s actions in this case. 

Case 3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document 108 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff counters that she need not prove that the individual officers named in her complaint

violated her constitutional rights in order to establish her Monell claims, that evidence for her

municipal liability claim is inextricably intertwined with evidence supporting her other claims, and

that bifurcation would result in prejudice to her and a waste of judicial and jury resources. 

Defendant John Hallman, Deputy Sheriff for the County of Napa, filed a statement of nonopposition to the City Defendant’s motion. 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). The Court elects not to decide the issue of bifurcating trial at this time, and will instead

address the issues raised by the City Defendants’ Motion at the pre-trial conference, although the

Court may well decide to phase the trial, as discussed at the hearing. The Court DENIES the City

Defendants’ request to stay all Monell-related discovery at this time.

Also on July 20, 2010, this Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel information

relating to her First Requests for Production of Documents served on the City of Napa. In light of

the parties’ productive ongoing meet and confer efforts and the expectation that the parties will be

able to resolve their remaining disputes without Court intervention, the Court hereby DENIES the

Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties shall meet and confer and notify the Court of an

acceptable hearing date for a renewed hearing on this motion, and may request a somewhat

expedited schedule for filing updated papers, and may request use of a joint memorandum setting

forth side by side each side’s position on each issue. A renewed hearing date will be placed on the

Court’s calendar, and vacated if the Court later determines that a further hearing is unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02782-EDL Document 108 Filed 07/20/10 Page 2 of 2