Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Oklahoma

Background

“Separate trials of claims or issues may be ordered if fairness or convenience justifies separate treatment.” (See A-Plus Janitorial Carpet Cleaning v. Tewca (1997) 936 P.2d 916, 931.)

“Upon a party's motion, a trial court may order a separate trial of any issue, but it is not required to do so.” (See Cary by and Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc. (1997) 940 P.2d 201, 208 n.5.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Bifurcation is a time saving device which allows the issue of liability to be tried initially.” (See Fields v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (1976) 555 P.2d 48, 53.)

“The court, in furtherance of convenienceor 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.” (See Cary by and Through Cary v. Oneok, Inc. (1997) 940 P.2d 201, 208 n.5.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Generally, it is within the discretion of the trial court to bifurcate a trial.” (See Fisher ex Rel. Fisher v. Northland Ins. Co. (2000) 23 P.3d 296, 298.)

“The court may order a separate trial of any issue upon proper motion by a party and the exercise of discretion will be disturbed only for clear abuse.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “issues adjudicated in earlier phases of a bifurcated trial are binding in later phases of that trial and need not be relitigated.” (See Baytide Petroleum v. Whitmar EXPL, (2000) 18 P.3d 378, 381 n.1.)

It is also well settled that “a trial judge must balance the inefficiency of separate trials against the prejudice the defendant asserts he will incur. The defendant has the burden of presenting evidence to show he will be prejudiced by the joinder.” (See Woodruff v. State, (1992) 825 P.2d 273, 275.)