Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs—three representative unions and individual current and former members of the Emergency Medical Services Bureau of the Fire Department of the City of New York—moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) to bifurcate, or divide, the trial into separate liability and remedies phases. The City of New York opposed the motion. It argued that the request was premature because substantial fact discovery remained, including depositions and additional document production. The City also stated that expert discovery would follow and that it anticipated filing motions to decertify some or all of the class or subclasses and for summary judgment.

Legal standard

Rule 42(b) permits a district court to order separate trials of issues or claims for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to speed up and make the proceedings more economical. The rule does not set a deadline for requesting or ordering bifurcation. The decision is within the trial court’s discretion, and the court also has authority to manage its docket and courtroom efficiently.

Court’s reasoning

The court agreed with the City that the motion was premature. Although the plaintiffs argued that the court could decide bifurcation while merits discovery was continuing, they did not explain why it should do so. Their statement that the parties should consider trial strategy during the remaining discovery was not enough. The court reasoned that even if it ordered separate liability and remedies phases immediately, the order might have to be reconsidered after the anticipated motions. Deciding trial logistics before the court knew what issues would remain would not be efficient or expedient.

Disposition

Judge Torres denied the plaintiffs’ motion to bifurcate trial without prejudice to renewal after an adjudication of the summary judgment motions or after the deadline to file those motions expires. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 217.