HERMAN J. WEBER, Senior District Judge.
Pending is the "Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages" (doc. no. 168) filed by defendant Taser International Inc. ("TASER"). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. On June 11, 2013, the Court held a hearing at which counsel presented oral arguments. Having fully considered the record, including parties' briefs, exhibits, oral arguments, and applicable authority, the Court will
This case arises from the death of Kevin Piskura ("Piskura") due to cardiac arrest in April of 2008. His death occurred five days after an incident in which he was allegedly "tased" in the chest by police officers. Piskura, age 24, had been involved in an altercation in a bar, was removed by bouncers, and police officers had responded to the scene. Piskura was extremely intoxicated at the time. The parties do not dispute that police discharged the TASER Model X26 electrical control device ("ECD") at Piskura from close range, but dispute whether "delivery" of the device's electric charge actually occurred. TASER contends that although Piskura immediately dropped to the ground, his death several days later was due to the effects of acute alcohol intoxication, rather than the effects of the ECD.
Piskura's parents, as next of kin and on behalf of their son's estate, filed a seven-count federal complaint against various defendants on April, 19, 2010. Extensive discovery ensued, certain claims were settled, and partial summary judgment was granted. The main claim still pending is the "failure to warn" claim, which concerns the sufficiency of the warnings issued by TASER with respect to discharging an "X26 ECD" device at a suspect's chest.
TASER relies on Ohio law in urging the court to bifurcate the claim for punitive damages. Specifically, Ohio R.C. § 2315.21 (B)(1) provides that "[i]n a tort action that is tried to a jury and in which a plaintiff makes a claim for compensatory damages and a claim for punitive or exemplary damages, upon the motion of any party, the trial of the tort action shall be bifurcated. . ."
Plaintiffs respond that bifurcation in this federal court is governed by Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the Ohio statute (doc. no. 177 at 4-5). Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b).). "It is well-established by a wealth of case law that ultimately the question of whether to conduct separate trials under Rule 42(b) should be, and is, a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court on the basis of the circumstances of the litigation before it." Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2388 (3d ed. 2013).
Plaintiffs argue that TASER has not shown that prejudice will be avoided or that judicial economy will be achieved, and therefore, this Court "should follow the traditional approach of conducting one consolidated trial with respect to compensatory and punitive damages" (doc. no. 177 at 3). Plaintiffs point out that in federal courts, "bifurcation is the exception, not the norm." See Wright & Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2388 (3d ed. 2013) ("The piecemeal trial of separate issues in a single lawsuit or the repetitive trial of the same issue in severed claims is not to be the usual course.").
TASER replies that an Ohio state case,
Other federal courts, in more recent cases, have found that the state court's characterization of Ohio R.C. § 2315.21 as "substantive" does not govern in federal court when considering whether to bifurcate. See
Based on the facts and arguments presently before this Court, the Court is not persuaded that bifurcation will enhance judicial economy, avoid prejudice, expedite the proceedings, or result in convenience to the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 42. The Court will deny this request without prejudice at this time.
Accordingly, the "Motion to Bifurcate Punitive Damages" (doc. no. 168) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.