Opinion
Civil Case No. 07-cv-01288-LTB-BNB.
November 6, 2007
ORDER
This case is before me on Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Defendant's Counterclaims (Doc 22) and Defendant's Response to the motion filed November 5, 2007 (Doc 24). Defendant's bad faith breach of insurance contract counterclaim pertains to hail storm damage occurring during July 2006. Defendants breach of contract counterclaim pertains both to the July 26 loss and a loss occurring in January 2007.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b) provides "the Court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim . . . or of any separate issue or of any number of claims . . ." Here, as moving party, Plaintiff has the burden to meet the rules requirements. I have considered the motion in the light of the file and record in this case and I conclude that Plaintiff fails to meet its burden.
First, the counterclaims for loss occurring in July 2006 and January 2007 clearly implicate common questions of fact and common witnesses. Moreover, the jury will have to determine causation of damage as to each occurrence or both.
Second, given the nature of the issues in this case, I can discern no undue prejudice to the Plaintiff in the trial of the counterclaims before the same jury. To the extent necessary, the Court can instruct the jury appropriately and I presume the jury will adhere to my instructions.
Finally, it is clear that separate jury trials will not promote judicial expediency and economy. To the contrary, the opposite will occur in the conduct of separate jury trials on Defendant's two counterclaims.
Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Bifurcate Defendant's Counterclaims (Doc 22) is DENIED.