Separate trials or bifurcation of a trial keeps a lawsuit intact, but allows the judge or jury to hear and determine one or more issues without trying all of the issues at the same time. This is often done to avoid unnecessarily prejudicing or inflaming the jury with evidence related to one issue that is not related to another issue. For example, courts sometimes order separate trials or bifurcation of a trial when a party is seeking punitive or exemplary damages, and the court does not want evidence of the person’s net worth or the entity’s valuation or revenue—which are relevant to punitive damages—to influence the jury’s decision on whether the person or entity is liable for the breach of contract, negligence, or other claim. In such a bifurcated trial, the jury does not hear evidence of the net worth, valuation, or revenue unless it first finds the defendant liable on the underlying claim.

In California, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is addressed under the California Rules of Court and the California Code of Civil Procedure. Bifurcation can be requested by a party or ordered by the court when it is deemed that separate issues should be tried independently to avoid prejudice, or when it is more convenient or economical. For instance, in cases involving punitive damages, a court may order a bifurcated trial to ensure that the jury first determines liability before considering the defendant's financial status, which is relevant to the assessment of punitive damages. This is to prevent the jury's decision on liability from being influenced by the defendant's wealth or lack thereof. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court and is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific circumstances and potential for prejudice in the presentation of evidence.