Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2019-00051125-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 03, 2023

08/04/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00051125-CU-PO-CTL DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Bifurcation, 05/30/2023

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Bifurcation Deschenes v. BEA, Case No. 2019-51125 August 4, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a premises liability case involving an electromagnetic lock which fell from an office building doorway and injured plaintiff Richard Deschenes' head. For further background, the court hereby incorporates part 1 of the minutes from January 21, 2022. ROA 269. On that day, the court denied Kilroy's motion for summary judgment. The case is set for trial later this month, having been continued several times (due in large measure to wrangling over discovery). ROA 282-285, 322-324, 375-379.

Several defendants have settled. The parties answered ready at the TRC last week. ROA 482-483.

Presently, the remaining defendant (Kilroy) has filed a motion seeking to bifurcate liability and damages.

ROA 473. Plaintiffs filed opposition. ROA 484. Kilroy filed reply. ROA 485. The court has reviewed the papers, and no further submissions are permitted in connection with this motion.

2. Applicable Standards.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 598, motions such as the one filed by defendants seeking a phasing of the trial are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision is subject to reversal on appeal only for clear abuse. See Mellone v. Lewis, (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 4, 7; Downey Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1072, 1086. The issues a trial court must analyze include trial time savings, the possibility of overlap of proof, the need for repetitive proof, the possibility of inconsistent results, and the need to avoid prejudice.

3. Discussion and Ruling.

The bifurcation motion is denied. The court is not persuaded that bifurcation promotes judicial economy or offers a significant time savings. The parade of horribles ominously described in the moving papers (i.e., 39 experts designated by plaintiffs) is not borne out by the Joint Trial Readiness Report (ROA 483).

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2979874  60 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  DESCHENES VS BUREAU D ELECTRONIQUE APPLIQUEE BEA  37-2019-00051125-CU-PO-CTL To the extent plaintiffs attempt to call experts not identified in the Report – as suggested in the reply – such conduct 'may, in the court's discretion, result in exclusion or restriction of use at trial.' SDSC Local Rule 2.1.15. Moreover, the court agrees with plaintiffs' counsel that, based on its past conduct, Kilroy's comment about suddenly having a 'serious incentive to settle' if liability is found lacks persuasive force.

Plaintiffs' request in their opposition brief for an order to a mandatory settlement conference is also denied. There is no showing that the precursors to a successful MSC are in place (as is required by SDSC Local Rule 2.3.1). Indeed, the showing makes clear that the reverse is true: there has been a demand but no offer, and the strong inference is that the parties are not close. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that the court asking one of his colleagues to become involved would have any chance of bearing fruit.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2979874  60