Murphy v. Minnesota Department of Human Services

Background

The court considered the plaintiffs’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b) to bifurcate, or separate, the trial into liability and remedies phases. The plaintiffs had previously sought sanctions under Rule 37 concerning the defendant’s production of more than 7,000 pages of documents and disclosure of ten new witnesses on April 20, 2020. A magistrate judge denied exclusion of those materials and allowed limited additional discovery. The district court had upheld that remedy.

Arguments

The plaintiffs asked the court to separate the liability and remedies phases and to limit the liability phase to evidence gathered under the existing scheduling order. They argued that liability concerned what the system was, while remedies—particularly prospective injunctive relief—concerned what the system was at the time of trial. They also argued that allowing the defendant to present evidence about policies developed after the discovery deadline, without comparable information about the defendant’s actions, would cause extreme prejudice.

The defendant opposed bifurcation. The court recognized that Rule 42(b) permits separate trials for convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to promote efficiency, but explained that separate trials are generally an exception because they can create piecemeal litigation.

Court’s reasoning

The court found no unfair prejudice because the earlier sanctions order allowed the plaintiffs to conduct supplemental discovery concerning information produced after the discovery deadline. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had withdrawn their jury demand and that the defendant had consented. Because the judge would serve as the factfinder, the court concluded that the concerns about confusing a jury with evidence relevant to only one phase were reduced. The court could also use post-trial briefing to identify which evidence applied to particular issues.

The court found no efficiency benefit. Witnesses and experts might have to testify during both phases. Historical evidence could help explain later changes in policies and practices, and delaying present-policy discovery could lead to additional discovery if policies changed again. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that a liability ruling might encourage settlement or eliminate the need for further discovery as too speculative.

The court additionally considered the practical effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had prevented or delayed civil trials in the district, as well as the priority given to the district’s criminal-trial backlog. It concluded that separating the trial would not produce the rapid liability trial followed by a remedies trial that the plaintiffs sought.

Disposition

Judge Donovan W. Frank ordered that the plaintiffs’ Rule 42 motion to bifurcate trial was DENIED. This order addressed trial structure and case management rather than deciding the underlying liability or remedies questions.