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 Louisiana, bifurcation of a trial is a procedural tool that allows a court to divide a trial into two or more separate phases. This process is governed by Article 1562 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, which permits the court to order separate trials for the sake of convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize the proceedings. Bifurcation is often used in cases where the presentation of evidence on one issue, such as punitive damages, could unfairly influence the jury's decision on a separate, primary issue, like liability. The decision to bifurcate a trial is at the discretion of the court and can be influenced by various factors, including the complexity of the issues and the potential for prejudice. If a trial is bifurcated, the jury would typically first determine liability. Only if liability is established would the trial proceed to the second phase, where the jury would consider evidence relevant to the determination of damages, such as a defendant's net worth.