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 Delaware, the concept of bifurcation or separate trials is recognized and can be applied in civil litigation. The Delaware Court of Chancery Rules and the Delaware Superior Court Civil Rules provide the legal framework for such procedures. Bifurcation can be ordered at the discretion of the court when it is deemed that separate proceedings are necessary to avoid prejudice, or when separate issues within the same case require distinct consideration. This is particularly relevant in cases where punitive damages are sought, and the court aims to prevent financial evidence from influencing the jury's decision on liability. The court will typically conduct a trial on the liability issue first, and only if the defendant is found liable, will a second trial phase consider the defendant's financial status for the purpose of determining punitive damages. The decision to bifurcate a trial is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specifics of the case and the potential for prejudice or confusion among the jury.