Taylor v. The State of Maryland et al, No. 8:2010cv02167 - Document 30 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/16/10. (sat, Chambers)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor v. The State of Maryland et al Doc. 30 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND : JOSEPH TAYLOR : v. : Civil Action No. DKC 10-2167 : THE STATE OF MARYLAND, et al. : MEMORANDUM OPINION Presently pending and ready for review is the motion of Defendant St. Mary’s County, Maryland for bifurcation and a stay of discovery. The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion will be granted. I. Background Plaintiff (ECF No. 20 Joseph ¶ 1). Taylor In his is a amended resident complaint, of Maryland. the State of Maryland, St. Mary’s County, Maryland, and Deputy Sheriff Keith Moritz are named as Defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that on June 28, 2009, he was sprayed in the eyes with mace by Defendant Moritz without warning or provocation and sustained personal injuries. counts for battery, (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9). negligence, § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment. and Plaintiff’s suit asserts violation of 42 U.S.C. Defendant St. Mary’s County, Dockets.Justia.com Maryland is allegedly liable for battery and negligence pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior (id. ¶¶ 16, 20) and for violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights under § 1983 because of the county’s “custom, policy, and practice of failing to take action to stop, the widespread and on-going use of excessive force by the County’s police officers.” Plaintiff’s initial complaint (Id. ¶ 27). was filed in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County, Maryland and subsequently removed to federal court on August 9, 2010. (ECF Nos. 1-2). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 13, 2010, but the motion was rendered moot prior to a court decision because the Plaintiff submitted Defendants an amended filed October 21, 2010. their complaint. answer to (ECF No. 22). (ECF the Nos. amended 9 and complaint 20). on Defendant St. Mary’s County, Maryland then moved for bifurcation and a stay of discovery concerning the § 1983 claim only. II. (ECF No. 25). Motion for Bifurcation and Stay of Discovery A. Standard of Review Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(b), the court may, “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy,” order separate trials of any claims or issues. The court has broad discretion in deciding whether to bifurcate claims for trial, and the exercise of that discretion will be set aside only if clearly abused. 2 Dixon v. CSX Transp., Inc., 990 F.2d 1440, 1443 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 915 (1993). B. Analysis Defendant argues that bifurcation is appropriate because the viability of Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against the County is dependent upon the resolution of his claims against Defendant Moritz and Plaintiff cannot prevail against the County unless and until he prevails against Defendant Moritz. at 3). (ECF No. 25-1, Defendant maintains that bifurcation of the claims will speed the discovery and trial processes and also prevent any prejudice to incidents of Defendant police Moritz brutality that are might introduced arise as if prior evidence to establish a county custom or policy of tolerating or prescribing the use of excessive force. Id. Plaintiff opposes bifurcation and argues that the motion should be denied because (1) he is a person of limited financial means and bifurcation will increase his financial burden; (2) any potential prejudice to Defendant Moritz could be cured with proper jury instructions; and (3) Defendant has a discovery would pending impair motion to Plaintiff’s dismiss and ability to evidence necessary to oppose the motion. Counties § 1983 where and other some municipalities custom, practice, a stay develop of the (ECF No. 28, at 1-2). can or be liable policy of under the municipality is the proximate cause of the violation of the 3 plaintiff’s Dep’t of constitutional Soc. municipality Servs., can only rights. 436 be Monell U.S. held 658, liable v. New 692-94 under § York City (1978). A 1983 if the plaintiff first establishes that some county employee violated his constitutional rights. Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 579 (4th Cir. 2001); James v. Frederick Cnty. Pub. Schs., 441 F.Supp.2d 755, 761 (D.Md. 2006). Because potential of the secondary liability under nature § 1983, of a municipality courts have on frequently bifurcated discovery and or trial so that cases proceed first with a trial against the individual defendant(s) alleged to be primarily liable. (granting motion See, to e.g., James, bifurcate and 441 F.Supp.2d proceed first at 762 against individual defendant); Jones v. Ziegler, 894 F.Supp. 880, 883 (D.Md. 1996), aff’d by, Jones v. Welham, 104 F.3d 620 (4th Cir. 1997); Marryshow v. Town of Bladensburg, 139 F.R.D. 318, 230 (D.Md. 1991); Dawson v. Prince George’s Cnty., 896 F.Supp. 537, 540 (D.Md. 1995). Not only does bifurcation in such situations streamline the issues for trial, it prevents prejudice to the individual defendants that would otherwise arise from the introduction of evidence of prior incidents of police brutality in order to make a case against Marryshow, 139 F.R.D. at 320. 4 the municipality. See Against bifurcation this are backdrop Plaintiff’s unpersuasive. First, arguments the against potential for an increased financial burden for Plaintiff as a result of the bifurcation is small. Streamlining the issues and limiting discovery to the claim against Defendant Moritz initially will curb rather necessary, than any increase issues costs, litigated and in if the a second first binding upon the parties during the second phase. trial is will be trial Second, while a jury instruction could limit the harm to Defendant Moritz from prejudicial evidence, no instruction entirely the potential for prejudice. is likely to remove Finally, and as noted above, the pending motion to dismiss referenced by Plaintiff in his opposition has been denied as moot. And even if the motion were still pending it was based on deficiencies in Plaintiff’s pleading which could not be refuted with evidence uncovered through discovery. Absent any compelling arguments from Plaintiff, bifurcation of the § 1983 claim against St. Mary’s County, Maryland and a stay of discovery are warranted. 5 III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s bifurcation and a stay of discovery will be granted. motion A separate Order will follow. /s/ DEBORAH K. CHASANOW United States District Judge 6 for
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
