IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0498-KD-M

)

HAMILTON SMITH, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action was brought pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), 

and is now before the Court on defendant Hamilton Smith’s motion to bifurcate and the United 

States’ response in opposition (docs. 16, 22). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth 

herein, the motion is DENIED. 

Background

The United States brings this civil action against Smith pursuant to Sections 309(a) and 

(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1319(b) and (d), to obtain injunctive relief and civil 

penalties. The United States alleges that Smith has discharged pollutants into waters of the 

United States in Baldwin County, Alabama, without authorization by a permit issued by the 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. Smith contends that his activities on the land are 

agricultural and silvicultural operations that are exempt under Section 404(f) of the Act. 

Smith moves the Court to bifurcate the trial into a liability phase and a damages/civil 

penalties phase. Smith argues that bifurcation would streamline discovery, expedite the litigation, 

and avoid prejudice to Smith by discovery of personal and business financial information should 

he be found not liable. In opposition, the United States argues that bifurcation would complicate 

the action, result in prolonged and duplicative judicial proceedings, delay final resolution, and 

prejudice its efforts to establish its case against Smith because it is entitled to discover all 

Case 1:12-cv-00498-KD-C Document 25 Filed 03/28/13 Page 1 of 2
2

relevant evidence regarding all the matters raised in the complaint. The United States points out 

that there is substantial overlap between evidence that is relevant to liability and evidence that is 

relevant to civil penalties and that these issues are so intertwined that bifurcation would be 

inefficient and confusing. 

Analysis

Under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has discretion to 

bifurcate certain issues or claims “for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and 

economize.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). Smith has failed to convince the Court that a bifurcation of 

the trial will expedite the process. Rather, the United States makes a convincing case that most 

of the discovery requested that relates to possible civil penalties also relates to liability. This 

determination should not be construed as an endorsement that all of the discovery requested by 

the United States is appropriate. That decision will be made by United States Magistrate Judge 

Cassady upon proper motion. See Griffin v. City of Opa–Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 

2001) (Finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that 

bifurcation would decrease judicial efficiency and “‘result in the court essentially trying the same 

case twice.’”). 

DONE and ORDERED this the 27th day of March, 2013.

s / Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00498-KD-C Document 25 Filed 03/28/13 Page 2 of 2