Opinion
18-cv-11752
08-25-2022
ROBERT AVERY, Plaintiff, v. TREMAINE NEVERSON, Defendant.
ORDER
(1) BIFURCATING THE LIABILITY AND DAMAGES PHASES OF THE TRIAL;
(2) SETTING A DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE;
AND
(3) ORDERING THE PARTIES TO SUBMIT A REVISED PROPOSED JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
PAUL D. BORMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE
I. BIFURCATION OF THE TRIAL
This case arises out of a series of events on December 28, 2016, wherein Plaintiff Robert Avery, a Sergeant with the Detroit Police Department, alleges that Defendant Tremaine Neverson assaulted him as Neverson was being arrested for the felonious assault of another person, former co-plaintiff Andrew Potter. Plaintiff alleges one count of assault and battery against Defendant. For the following reasons, the Court will BIFURCATE the liability and damages phases of the trial in this matter.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit proper analysis for ordering bifurcation of a trial under Fede Procedure 42(b):
A court may bifurcate a trial “in furtherance of convenience prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expendition economy.” In determining whether separate trial are appropriate court should consider several facts, including “the potential to the parties, the possible confusion of the jurors, and t convenience and economy.”
Wilson v. Morgan, 477 F.3d 326, 339 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal The decision to bifurcate a trial is within the court's discretion and the court's own motion. Saxion v. Titan-C-Mfg, Inc., 86 F.3d: 1996).
The Court finds, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b), that would best be served in this case by bifurcation of the liability ar of the trial, to allow the jury to first hear and determine Defend: regard to Plaintiff's assault and battery claim. The issues regarding claimed damages are not relevant in determining liability and therefore could conflate the issue. confuse the juri, and result in prejudice, The balance of factors therefore weigh in favour of bifurcation.
Consequently, the court will exercise its discretion purssuant to fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) and bifurcate the trial. When the jury trial commences, the jury will first determine the issue of liability on Plaintiff's assault and battery returns a verdict in favor of Plaintiff, then the second phase of the damages will immediately commence and utilize the same jury.
II. MOTIONS IN LIMINE
On June 3, 2022, the parties submitted to the Court a pr< Pretrial Order. In that proposed Order, Defendant objected to exhibits of Plaintiff which were the subject of a then-pending (Proposed Order, pp. 5, 9.) That motion in limine has now been < 48.)
In addition, the parties indicated that limited potential obj and witnesses remain at issue. Specifically, Defendant states this parts of the prosecutor's file may not be admissible related to th not be presented in Plaintiffs case in chief but may be used in re Order at p. 5.) Defendant also states, with respect to four of Pl expert witnesses, all doctors, that “Defendant has not agreed to the status of this witness as an expert as this is a more recently added treating physician and records are pending" (id at p. 7.) each exhibit and/or witness objected to, specifying the legal basis for the objection. Do not merely direct the Court to Fed.R.Evid. 402, 403 or 702; discuss the specific relevant facts in the case, the relevant language in the Rule, and any applicable text in Sixth Circuit or District Court precedent. These motions, if any, are due on or before September 30, 2022.
III. REVISED JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER
The Court FURTHER ORDERS the parties to submit a revised proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order incorporating the Court's ruling bifurcating the trial.
The parties must identify in the revised proposed Joint Final Pretrial Order which exhibits and which witnesses will be used in the liability phase of the trial and which exhibits and which witnesses will be used in the damages phase.
The parties must also specify the estimated length of the trial, in half days (9 a.m. to 1 p.m.), for the liability phase, and then, if necessary, for the damages phase of the trial.
The parties are ORDERED to submit a revised proposed joint final pretrial order on or before October 28, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.