California Expanded Metal Products Company v. James Klein

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 CALIFORNIA EXPANDED CASE NO. C18-0659JLR METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY, 11 et al., ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 Plaintiffs, v. 13

JAMES A. KLEIN, et al., 14 15 Defendants.

16 Before the court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by Special 17 Master Mark Walters on (1) Plaintiffs California Expanded Metal Products Company and 18 Clarkwestern Dietrich Building Systems LLC’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion for 19 leave to file an overlength brief for their upcoming motion for contempt; and (2) the 20 parties’ stipulated motion to bifurcate issues related to damages. (R&R (Dkt. # 252) at 21 1.) The parties agree on both the requested page limits and bifurcation. (See id. at 2-3.) 22 // 1 Having reviewed the R&R, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable 2 law, the court adopts the R&R in its entirety. (See id.) The parties’ briefing regarding 3 the motion for contempt shall adhere to the following page limits:

4 Brief Page Limit Opening Brief 50 5 Opposition Brief 50 Reply Brief 20 6 Moreover, the court agrees with the R&R that bifurcation of the damages phase is 7 appropriate here. A district court’s authority to bifurcate comes from Federal Rule of 8 Civil Procedure 42(b), which states, “[f]or convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite 9 and economize, the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues.” Fed. 10 R. Civ. P. 42(b). The decision to bifurcate damages issues from liability issues is in the 11 sound discretion of the trial court. Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719 F.3d 12 1305, 1319-20 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Courts weigh several factors, including convenience, 13 prejudice, and judicial economy. Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., No. C99-02506SI, 2008 WL 14 2074401, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2008). Bifurcation is particularly appropriate when 15 resolution of a single claim or issue could be dispositive of the entire case. Karpenski v. 16 Am. Gen. Life Cos., LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1188, 1190 (W.D. Wash. 2012). 17 Here, the parties represent that bifurcation is convenient because “supplementation 18 of discovery related to damages will be required” given the recent addition of a non-party 19 to these proceedings. (R&R at 2; see 9/1/21 Order (Dkt. # 251 (sealed)) at 26.) 20 Moreover, determination of damages will only be necessary if the court finds contempt 21 and permits damages. (See id. at 2-3.) Under these circumstances, the court agrees that 22 1 bifurcation of damages issues would be convenient to all parties and promote judicial 2 economy. Should contempt be found, the parties shall be ordered to meet and confer 3 within seven (7) days of any such order and submit within fourteen (14) days a joint

4 status report setting forth a proposed schedule regarding how to proceed with the 5 damages phase. 6 Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. # 252) and 7 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to file an overlength brief and the parties’ stipulation to 8 bifurcate issues related to damages.

9 Dated this 8th day of September, 2021. 10 A 11 12 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22