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 Nevada, the concept of separate trials or bifurcation is addressed under the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure (NRCP). According to NRCP 42(b), the court may order a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party claims when it would be in the interests of convenience or would avoid prejudice, or when separate trials would be conducive to expedition and economy. Bifurcation is often used in cases where the evidence on one issue may unfairly influence the jury's decision on another issue. For instance, in cases involving punitive damages, a Nevada court may bifurcate the proceedings to prevent the jury from hearing evidence about a defendant's financial status until after they have determined liability on the underlying claim. This is to ensure that the decision on liability is based solely on the evidence relevant to that issue and is not tainted by considerations of the defendant's ability to pay punitive damages.