Motion to Bifurcate Civil Trial in Oregon

Background

“ORS 11.060 provides for separate trials of certain claims or issues.” (See Weiss v. Northwest Accept. Corp. (1976) 274 Or. 343, 356.)

“ORS 11.060 provides that separate trials may be ordered in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Under ORCP 53B, the trial judge may order a separate trial of any claim or of any separate issue or issues only (1) in furtherance of convenience, (2) to avoid prejudice, or (3) if conducive to expedition and economy.” (See Bremner v. Charles (1992) 312 Or. 274, 279.)

“A decision to bifurcate under ORCP 53B may be made by a trial judge, therefore, only as a result of an informed exercise of discretion on the merits of each case.” (See id.) 

“Bifurcation of issues for trial is not to be ordered routinely.” (See id.)

“A prerequisite to the exercise of discretion is that bifurcation will promote one or more of the purposes of the rule, i.e., convenience, avoidance of prejudice, or conduciveness to expedition and economy.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“It is within the authority of the trial court to segregate an issue for a separate trial.” (See Jones v. Flannigan (1975) 273 Or. 563, 565.)

“Inasmuch as the trial court's rulings concern the administration of the business of the trial court, the appellate courts grant the trial courts a wide range of discretion in making such rulings.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “under FRCP 42(b), the federal counterpart to ORCP 53B, the presence of any one of these standards — convenience, avoidance of prejudice, and conduciveness to expedition and economy — is also sufficient to sustain an order of separation of trial in the exercise of informed discretion.” (See Bremner v. Charles (1992) 312 Or. 274, 279 n.7.)

It is also well settled that “the decision must be case specific. A routine order of bifurcation in all actions involving personal injury or death actions, for example, would be a practice at odds with the requirement that informed discretion be exercised.” (See id.)