Opinion
DOCKET NO. 97-CV-0677E(Sr)
Opinion Filed: October 25, 2000
Nell J. Mohn, Esq., and James P. Giambrone, Jr., c/o The Law Offices of H.A. Zionts Buffalo, NY, ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
Sewer Authority — Charles S. Carra, Esq., c/o Damon Morey, Buffalo, NY, Williams — Laurence D. Behr, Esq., c/o Barth, Sullivan Behr Buffalo, NY, ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT.
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiffs bring this action against the above-captioned defendants alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"), and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301. This Court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1367. Presently before the undersigned are defendants' motions, made pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCvP"), requesting a separate trial of defendant Williams' counterclaims against plaintiff Dawn Slinkowsky ("Mrs. Slinkowsky") which allege intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation. For the reasons stated hereinbelow, such motions will be granted.
FRCvP 42(b) states that this 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, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues * * *." "Therefore, bifurcation may be appropriate where, for example, the litigation of the first issue might eliminate the need to litigate the second issue * * * or where one party will be prejudiced by evidence presented against another party * * *." Amato v. City of Saratoga Springs, 170 F.3d 311, 316 (2d Cir. 1999).
The primary basis for defendant Williams' counterclaims is that Mrs. Slinkowsky made false and defamatory statements to a television news station about defendant Williams with regard to her allegations of sexual harassment which statements were aired by such station. In support of their motions, defendants argue that to try has counterclaims at the same time as plaintiffs' claims would greatly prejudice each defendant — viz., to do so necessarily requires that the jury view a tape of such news report and the jury might confuse its "newsworthiness" with credibility. They further argue that, absent defendant Williams' counterclaims, the admissibility of the tape of this broadcast in plaintiffs' case-in-chief is doubtful. Consequently and that no party be unduly prejudiced, defendants state that defendant Williams' counterclaims should be tried after the jury has rendered a verdict on plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have opposed the instant motions on the basis that no defendant will be prejudiced if the counterclaims and plaintiffs' claims are tried in a single action and the interests of convenience and efficiency are not served by a bifurcation of the same.
Upon review of the parties' relative positions, this Court is satisfied that defendants have demonstrated a need to try the counterclaims separately from and subsequent to plaintiffs' claims. Firstly, the tape of the broadcast would likely not be admissible against defendants and the playing of such in support of the counterclaims could presumably prejudice defendants by leading the jury to conclude that Mrs. Slinkowsky's allegations are more credible than they would otherwise be simply because the allegations were aired on a local news report. Secondly and, as indicated by each defendant, trying defendant Williams' counterclaims after the jury has returned a verdict on plaintiffs' claims might obviate the need to try such claim at all. As stated by counsel for defendant Williams, it seems likely that, "if Mrs. Slinkosky prevails against Mr. Williams on her harassment claim, her affirmative defense of truth shall have been established, and there will be no need to proceed to a trial" of Williams' counterclaims. August 25, 2000 Behr. Affirm. ¶ 19.
It should be noted that, for the purposes of the instant motions, this Court is not ruling on the admissibility vel non of such evidence. Any objections thereto will be heard when such has been proffered for the jury's consideration.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants' motions for a bifurcated trial are granted, that plaintiffs' claims shall be adjudicated first, that — after the jury has rendered its verdict or verdicts on such claims — the same jury shall hear defendant Williams' counterclaims and that the parties shall appear in Part III of this Court on the 17th day of November, 2000 at 3:00 p.m. (or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard) to set a date for trial.