Opinion
Case No. 2:02-CV-106TS
December 10, 2003
ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE DISCOVERY OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES
This matter is before the court on the Motion to Bifurcate filed by non-party Hewlett-Packard Company (Hewlett-Packard).
Hewlett Packard seeks to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of discovery and to defer discovery, particularly the discovery that Gateway currently seeks from Hewlett Packard, until after liability has been established at trial. Thus, the Motion also seeks bifurcation of trial. Gateway contends that if Hewlett-Packard is not a party it lacks standing to seek bifurcation. Further, Gateway contends that bifurcation should be denied because the discovery it requires from Hewlett-Packard is relevant to the issue of commercial success, or lack of success, of the subject patent and therefore is relevant to the validity of the patent and liability, Gateway also contends that all of Hewlett-Packard's objections to the requested discovery can be adequately addressed in the pending discovery motions.
Although Hewlett Packard describes itself as a non-party, it is an intervenor. On April 29, 2003, it moved to intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2), for the purpose of seeking a protective order. On May 2, 2003, the court granted Hewlett-Packard's Motion and held that Hewlett-Packard "may intervene to present its Motion for a Protective Order." The court agrees with Hewlett-Packard that its intervention is for the limited purpose of filing its motion for a protective order and raising issues related thereto. The court need not determine if such a limited intervenor has standing to bring a Rule 42(b) Motion to Bifurcate because regardless of whether it has standing, it has not shown that bifurcation is appropriate.
This court may order a separate trial of any claim or separate issue "in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy." Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b).
The decision to bifurcate is within the discretion of the trial court. A court should consider the following factors: (1) judicial economy; (2) convenience to the parties; (3) expedition; and (4) avoidance of prejudice and confusion.Richardson v. Valley Asphalt, Inc., 109 F. Supp.2d 1332, 1342 (D. Utah 2000) (quoting In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (bifurcating patent and antitrust claims).
Considering these factors, the court finds that bifurcation is not appropriate, Judicial economy is not served by bifurcation unless the issues of liability and damages are "clearly separable.11 Angela v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 964 (10th Cir. 1993) (asbestos case). In the present case, it does not appear "clearly" that the issues are separable.
In the present case, the Gateway/Hewlett-Packard discovery dispute is currently before the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Gateway's Motion to Compel. It does not foster judicial economy to file what is basically Hewlett-Packard's opposition to the discovery motion already pending before the Magistrate Judge as a motion to bifurcate.
Although it is not a party, Hewlett-Packard nonetheless argues that bifurcation would be in the interest of convenience to the parties. The parties are represented by counsel and neither party seeks or supports bifurcation. The court finds that bifurcation is not in the interest of convenience of any party,
The factor of expedition would not be served by bifurcation because issues raised by Hewlett-Packard are already pending before the Magistrate Judge who has presided over other discovery in this case, including the discovery sought against another non-party. The Magistrate Judge is in the best position to evaluate the parties' arguments regarding relevance, need and protective orders and it will be most expeditious to have him do so.
This will be a bench trial and therefore it does not appear that the factors of potential confusion and prejudice from holding a single trial on all issues is significant. Further, any claim of prejudice to non-parties relating to discovery disputes before the Magistrate Judge are most appropriately addressed in those pending motions. Hewlett-Packard has intervened to protect its interests regarding the disputed discovery issues and has the procedural remedies available to do so. It is therefore
ORDERED that Non-party Hewlett-Packard's Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED.