Opinion
C.A. No.: 6:03-1908-23.
May 11, 2006
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon Defendants' motion to bifurcate and other matters raised in various pre-trial memoranda.
In their motion to bifurcate, Defendants request that the liability/compensation portion and the punitive damages portion (if allowed) be bifurcated. Upon consideration of Defendants' motion, the court has determined that it will proceed as follows: The court will explain both compensatory and punitive damages, including the difference between the two, in the court's closing charge at the end of the trial. Then, the court will include a question on the verdict form, asking the jury to determine whether it would like to consider evidence of punitive damages (provided that the jury finds liability and actual damages on a cause of action that would permit an award of punitive damages). Should the jury indicate that it would like to consider evidence of punitive damages, the court will proceed to a second phase of the trial, wherein the court will permit the parties to present limited additional evidence related solely to the issue of punitive damages, such as net worth.
With respect to the other matters raised in various pre-trial memoranda, the court has made the following determinations. First, the court will determine the issue of attorney's fees under both the statute and the contract, and provided that entitlement to attorney's fees is so proven, the amount. Second, with respect to Plaintiff's unfair trade practices claim, the court finds that the alleged acts have the potential for repetition. Third, the court finds that there has been no election of remedies on the part of Plaintiff, and none is required. Fourth, the court finds that the contract's definition of "Confidential Information" is not overly broad. Fifth, Plaintiff may recover damages appropriate to any given cause of action, but Plaintiff may only recover once under any and all theories.
As a practical matter, the issues of treble damages and reasonable attorney's fees are decided by the judge under the specific language of S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a), which provides, in pertinent part:
If the court finds that the use or employment of the unfair or deceptive method, act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of § 39-5-20, the court shall award three times the actual damages sustained and may provide such other relief as it deems necessary or proper. Upon the finding by the court of a violation of this article, the court shall award to the person bringing such action under this section reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a).
Lastly, the parties must be ready to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, May 15, 2006. Additionally, the court sets forth the following guidelines for the parties' opening statements. First, each side will be limited to twenty (20) minutes. Second, the parties' opening statements will provide only a general outline of the case and will include no specific references to anyone's personal life, quotes from any depositions, or use of any exhibits.
CONCLUSION
It is, therefore, ORDERED, for the aforementioned reasons that Defendant's motion to bifurcate is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The remaining matters are handled as set forth above.AND IT IS SO ORDERED.