Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 19STCV00682, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

I. BACKGROUND

Factual

On May 24, 2017, Plaintiff Donald Green (“Plaintiff”) was working on a stand-up forklift at his place of employment at Lithographix, Inc. (“Lithographix”) when he allegedly lost control of the stand-up forklift, colliding into a nearby empty storage rack system. The rack allegedly penetrated the operator compartment, pinning the Plaintiff between the operator compartment of the stand-up forklift and a horizontal bar that was part of a shelf on the storage rack system, allegedly causing injuries to Plaintiff’s abdominal area and lower back. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rack Us Up, Inc. (“Rack Us Up”) was negligent in installing the shelving rack system that caused Plaintiff to be injured. Plaintiff also has sued the forklift manufacturer alleging that the forklift was defectively designed, contributing to or worsening the risk of injury, and that Global Trade Marketing, Inc. dba Ziglift Material Handling (“Ziglift”) is liable for negligently or defectively making the unassembled storage rack system that was installed and assembled by others the day before the accident.

Defendants/Cross-Defendant Ziglift now file a Motion to Bifurcate Liability from Damages.

Procedural

On December 5, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Defendant, Global Trade Marketing, Inc. dba Ziglift Material Handling filed the Motion to Bifurcate. On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 27, 2023, Defendant/Cross-Defendant Ziglift filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 598 provides in pertinent part that, “[t]he court may, when the convenience of witnesses, the ends of justice, or the economy and efficiency of handling the litigation would be promoted thereby, on motion of a party, after notice and hearing, make an order . . . that the trial of any issue or any part thereof shall precede the trial of any other issue or any part thereof.” Similarly, Code of Civil Procedure § 1048(b) provides in pertinent part that, “[t]he 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 cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues.”

The Court’s discretionary authority to sever claims and try them separately may also be employed to avoid undue prejudice to a party. (Stencel Aero Engineering Corp., v. Superior Court (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 988.) Courts have inherent power to regulate the order of trial, and therefore can entertain a motion to bifurcate at any time—even during the trial itself. (McLellan v. McLellan (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 343, 353.)

The discretion of the trial court to bifurcate claims and try them separately is broad and will not be disturbed on appeal, except for abuse. (National Electric Supply Co. v. Mt. Diablo Unified School Dist. (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 418; see Buran Equip. Co. v. H & C Investment Co. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 338, 343-344 [commending the trial court for bifurcating the trial and ordering a specific issue be tried first, “since, if it had been correctly decided, trial would not have been required of any other issues.”].)

Discussion

Here, Ziglift argues that bifurcation will promote judicial efficiency because, it contends, Plaintiff will be unable to prove that any negligent act or omission on Ziglift’s part was a substantial factor in causing his alleged injuries. Ziglift contends that the surveillance video, testimony and documents obtained to date demonstrate that Plaintiff caused the subject incident by failing to exercise caution for his own safety. Based on this, Ziglift asserts that if it prevails on its liability arguments, the presentation of Plaintiff’s damages evidence, which will be time consuming and emotional, will be a waste of time.

Ziglift also contends that the damages phase of the trial will likely require numerous medical experts on both sides, as well as Plaintiff’s treating healthcare providers to testify about Plaintiff’s injuries, present condition, the nature and extent of future medical care necessary and his ability to work. Ziglift notes that dedicating significant time to these damages witnesses, before liability has been determined, will waste the Court’s time and resources, as well as that of the jury. The motion estimates that 30% or 3 days of the trial time would be devoted to liability witnesses and 70% or 7 days to a half dozen categories of damages witnesses. The moving papers do not indicate how many of the defendants have counter-designated expert witnesses on any of the half-dozen categories of damages nor whether any of the defendants are sharing experts. Nor do the moving papers help the Court to understand how many percipient or expert witnesses may be testifying for each defendant or for Plaintiff on the varied liability issues. In short, the 3-day and 7-day estimates are not substantiated.

Lastly, Ziglift argues that bifurcation will prevent prejudice to Ziglift due to the gruesome damages evidence. Ziglift argues that Plaintiff’s bodily injuries are significant and will draw the jury’s sympathy, potentially causing them to overlook the legitimate liability arguments advanced by Ziglift. In its Reply brief, Ziglift further argues that “it is critical that the issues affecting Ziglift’s liability be heard separately from the issues of liability relevant to the other defendants in this case.” That new argument, which is not supported by any competent evidence, is inconsistent with the thrust of the motion itself which indicated that other defendants have liability arguments that mirror or overlap Ziglift’s. None of the other defendants joined in Ziglift’s motion.

This Court notes, as Plaintiff does in his opposition, that Ziglift has failed to present any evidence that the time savings or judicial efficiency argued in the moving papers will be achieved if bifurcation were ordered. Plaintiff argues that even if Ziglift were to prevail in the first phase of a bifurcated trial, there would still be multiple opening and closing arguments multiplied for each phase of the bifurcated trial against the other defendants. Moreover, the moving papers do not assist the Court in confirming counsel’s argument in the brief as to how much time would be allegedly saved by bifurcation, such as a list of the damages witnesses, number of medical experts deposed or designated as experts, estimates of the time they would be on the stand, or any such quantification. The new argument in the Reply brief appears to seek severing Ziglift from all the other defendants in this case or trifurcating two liability phases before a damages phase, even though that is not what the motion itself seeks. While bifurcation might save the moving defendant, Ziglift, trial time if it were to prevail on liability, the judicial economies of the entire case suggest that bifurcation would actually consume extra trial time for the case; plaintiff correctly notes that the total trial time would be elongated if there were separate liability and damages openings by each party and separate closing arguments at the conclusion of each bifurcated phase by each party. Ziglift is not alone as the defendant in this case; several other defendants have been joined as allegedly culpable parties and their liability issues appear to be distinct from Ziglift’s. Were the Court to be able to determine that liability was extremely unlikely to be established as to any defendant, which the Court has no basis for doing on the record before it, then bifurcating liability from damages might make more sense. But the moving papers do not carry the heavy burden of showing that here.

The Court is empathetic to the plight of the defendants in a serious bodily injury case where disturbing damages evidence may tend to elicit an emotional reaction from jurors. The Court typically addresses some of the emotional issues in its own voir dire, and allows considerable leeway during counsels’ voir dire to explore jurors’ self-assessment of the impact that a gruesome injury or a debilitating future life course might have on their ability to treat liability issues in a dispassionate way. But on the record presented in the moving and reply papers, the Court exercises its discretion in declining the invitation by only one of multiple defendants to bifurcate (or trifurcate) a 12-15 day jury trial. The Motion to Bifurcate is DENIED.