Van Patten v. Washington County, 3:15-cv-00891

In 2013, Washington County deputies responded to a domestic-violence call at Ken and Melinda Van Patten’s home; deputies did not arrest Ken.
The next day Ken shot and killed Melinda and then committed suicide; Melinda’s estate (through Melissa Van Patten) sued deputies and the County.
Plaintiff’s remaining claim is statutory liability under ORS § 133.055 (mandatory-arrest statute) and damages under Oregon’s wrongful-death statute, ORS § 30.020.
The County moved to bifurcate liability and damages trials shortly before pretrial filings and trial; Plaintiff opposed bifurcation.
The court held admissibility and relevance limits constrain evidence (what deputies knew at the time is dispositive for liability; damages recoverable categories are statutorily limited), and found the County’s proffered prejudicial evidence was either not in Plaintiff’s exhibit list or not admissible.
The court denied bifurcation, citing limited relevance of the contested evidence, availability of limiting instructions, potential prejudice to Plaintiff from bifurcation, and the County’s unexplained and untimely delay in seeking bifurcation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to bifurcate liability and damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b)	Single trial is appropriate; evidence is limited and manageable with limiting instructions	Bifurcation needed to avoid juror prejudice/confusion from graphic evidence and prior domestic-violence history	Denied — bifurcation unnecessary; relevance limits and instructions suffice
Admissibility/impact of graphic murder–suicide evidence	Plaintiff will not offer graphic photos/documents; witness testimony limited and subject to Rule 403	Such evidence would be unduly prejudicial and justify separate trials	Held that proposed graphic evidence was not in Plaintiff’s exhibit list; therefore not a basis for bifurcation
Admissibility/impact of prior domestic-violence incidents	Prior incidents, if admissible, are relevant only to liability under ORS § 133.055 and not to statutorily limited damages	Prior incidents would confuse jury on probable-cause determination	Court to rule on admissibility separately; but such evidence (if admitted) would pertain only to liability, so bifurcation not required
Prejudice from timing of motion to bifurcate	Bifurcation late would prejudice Plaintiff’s trial preparation	Bifurcation should be granted despite timing	Denied; County’s unexplained delay in seeking bifurcation weighs against granting relief

Benson Tower Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Victaulic Co., 150 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (D. Or.) (moving party bears burden to justify bifurcation)
Clark v. I.R.S., 772 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (D. Haw.) (burden on party seeking bifurcation)
Hirst v. Gertzen, 676 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion to bifurcate)
Nearing v. Weaver, 295 Or. 702 (Or.) (in statutory-liability actions, defenses limited to those in the statute)
Hamm v. Am. Home Prod. Corp., 888 F. Supp. 1037 (E.D. Cal.) (limiting instructions can cure prejudice and weigh against bifurcation)
Ghotra ex rel. Ghotra v. Bandila Shipping, Inc., 133 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.) (proof of post-injury consciousness required to recover post-injury pre-death pain and suffering)
Demars v. Erde, 55 Or. App. 863 (Or. Ct. App.) (Oregon wrongful-death statute limits recoverable items; no recovery for survivor’s pain and suffering)