Free Motion to Bifurcate - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Camelback Esplanade 2425 East Camelback Road Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602.474.3600

J. Mark Ogden; AZ Bar No. 017018 J. Greg Coulter, AZ Bar No. 016890 Kristin R. Culbertson; AZ Bar No. 020801 LITTLER MENDELSON A Professional Corporation Camelback Esplanade 2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 602.474.3600 Facsimile: 602.957.1801 Attorneys for Defendant IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Defendant.

Case No. CV 04-0627-PHX-JAT MOTION TO BIFURCATE PUNITIVE DAMAGES

I.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance Company ("Defendant" or "CGLIC")

hereby moves the Court for an order bifurcating the trial, separating liability issues from punitive damages. CGLIC anticipates that Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Plaintiff or EEOC") will seek to introduce evidence of CGLIC's financial condition to support its request for punitive damages. CGLIC's profitability and financial condition have no bearing on liability, and are relevant only as to the proper amount of punitive damages once liability for such damages has been established. The introduction of such evidence prior to a finding that Defendant is liable for punitive damages is unnecessary and prejudicial. This prejudicial effect and waste of judicial and party resources may be easily
Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT Document 115 Filed 06/22/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Camelback Esplanade 2425 East Camelback Road Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602.474.3600

avoided by an order bifurcating punitive damages and precluding introduction of financial condition evidence during the liability phase. II. ARGUMENT Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits bifurcation. Rule 42(b) provides: The 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, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States. The Rules specifically contemplate the application of this power to bifurcate at the pretrial conference. Rule 16 provides, in pertinent part: Subjects for Consideration at Pretrial Conferences. At any conference under this rule, consideration may be given, and the court may take appropriate action, with respect to . . . an order for a separate trial pursuant to Rule 42(b) with respect to a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or with respect to any particular issue in the case. Clearly, Rule 42(b) gives the Court the power, in its discretion, to order a bifurcated trial separating liability from punitive damages. Bifurcation will serve the important interests cited in the text of Rule 42(b): avoidance of prejudice and judicial economy. A separate trial on punitive damages will eliminate the risk that the jury will be prejudiced against Defendant by irrelevant "deep pocket" evidence during the liability phase. Moreover, bifurcating punitive damages would ensure that the verdict on liability is untainted by improper consideration of Defendant's financial condition, and would provide no prejudice to Plaintiff's ability to prove liability. If Plaintiff proves liability and malice, it will have ample opportunity to present financial condition evidence to the jury in the punitive damages phase. Specifically,

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

Document 1152

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LITTLER MENDELSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Camelback Esplanade 2425 East Camelback Road Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602.474.3600

Additionally, bifurcation of punitive damages promotes efficiency in the conduct of this trial. Bifurcation could altogether obviate the need for the introduction of financial evidence, for there will be no punitive damages phase unless Plaintiff first succeeds in establishing liability and a right to recover punitive damages. To avoid prejudice, and to promote expedition and economy, the Court should exercise its power under Rule 42(b) and order bifurcation. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, CGLIC asks the Court for an order bifurcating punitive damages from liability, and precluding the introduction of any evidence of Defendant's profitability or financial condition until after a finding is made that Defendant is liable for punitive damages. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 22nd day of June 2006.

s/ Kristin R. Culbertson J. Mark Ogden J. Greg Coulter Kristin R. Culbertson LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant I hereby certify that on June 22, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Mary Jo O'Neill C. Emanuel Smith Katherine J. Kruse Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85012-9688 Attorneys for Plaintiff s/ Sharon Cooper
Firmwide:81207264.1 042081.1007

Case 2:04-cv-00627-JAT

Document 1153

Filed 06/22/2006

Page 3 of 3