Opinion ID: 203380
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Stay and Bifurcation of Third-party Claims

Text: We spend some time on this matter because it directly affects one of the appellants' key objections to the court's later actions. On March 30, 2004, the magistrate judge issued an order, embodying an agreement by the parties, staying all discovery deadlines relating to the third- and fourth-party actions, including deadlines to make expert witness designations. On May 14, 2004, the magistrate judge ordered that the stay of discovery would remain in effect as to third-party claims, and also noted that [t]he parties are not yet sure if one or more of them might be opposed to bifurcation, and no final decision has been made in that regard. On July 6, 2004, the magistrate judge ruled on a second summary judgment motion filed by Citizens, in which Citizens sought judgment with respect to all remaining counts in Bangor's Second Amended Complaint. City of Bangor v. Citizens Commc'ns Co., No. 02-183, 2004 WL 1572612 (D.Me. July 6, 2004). The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion with respect to state law claims involving private nuisance, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, and punitive damages, and denying the motion with respect to all other claims. Id. at . The magistrate judge's opinion recommended bifurcation: [A]t the conclusion of the hearing counsel for [a third-party defendant] expressed concern whether the court envisioned that litigation between Citizens and the City would be binding against third-party defendants, who were essentially sidelined from this litigation in connection with the prior entry of judgment against Citizens's third-party CERCLA action against the Army Corps of Engineers and my order, entered by consent, staying discovery of third party experts.... I would recommend at this juncture that the court bifurcate this case and proceed solely on the action between the City and Citizens. Id. at . The recommendation was adopted in whole by the district court, without objection. City of Bangor v. Citizens Commc'ns Co., No. 02-183, 2004 WL 2823211, at  (D.Me. Oct. 14, 2004). Discovery remained stayed as to third parties pending resolution of the initial phase of the trial. In a joint memorandum requested by the court and filed on November 2, 2004, the parties agreed that the case would proceed in three phases, not two. Phase One would be a trial between Bangor and Citizens regarding Bangor's liability claims, Citizens's affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and Citizens's equitable share of responsibility. In Phase Two, the court would determine the appropriate remedy, if any, to address tar in the Penobscot River. If a third phase were necessary, it would consist of a trial to determine the third parties' liability to Citizens. In this memorandum, Citizens also took the position that findings and determinations in the first two phases of the case should be binding in the third phase involving the third parties. On February 17, 2005, the court declined to address any issues involving the third parties, noting that [t]his matter is scheduled to proceed to trial in May on a bifurcated basis, without participation by third parties. At best, the action remaining against any third party is purely hypothetical in any event, given the court's prior rulings. Therefore [Citizens's] motion all but asks for an advisory order binding those potential third-party defendants in an action that cannot even be contemplated under the current state of the record.