While noting that it had the power under 213 to
order separate trials of any parties or issues in furtherance of convenience or
to avoid prejudice, the court felt, at this early juncture of the case (which was still in the discovery phase), that it was not established that there was a need to bifurcate
the trial at that point.
In so ruling,
the court noted that it recognized the “additional challenges posed by
presenting both issues concurrently to one jury.” However, the court also noted that
appropriate jury instructions could be provided if necessary in a joint trial
to clarify and distinguish the issues with respect to each Defendant.
In the end, the court denied the Motion without
prejudice to the carrier's right to restate the Motion at the conclusion of discovery.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this detailed
Order may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Richard
(Ricky) E. Santee of the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania law firm of Shay, Santee &
Kelhart for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.