A motion to bifurcate asks the court to split a trial into separate phases — often liability and damages — tried one after another instead of together. It's a tool for managing complexity, but courts don't grant it automatically.
Judicial economy is the usual argument
The strongest bifurcation motions show that separating issues could resolve the case faster or more efficiently — for example, if a finding of no liability would make an entire damages phase unnecessary.
Avoiding prejudice is the other half of the test
Courts weigh whether bifurcation would prejudice either party — for instance, by requiring witnesses to testify twice, or by separating facts that a jury genuinely needs to consider together to understand the full picture.
Address the logistics, not just the theory
A well-drafted motion anticipates practical questions: which jury hears which phase, how evidence overlapping both issues will be handled, and what happens if the first phase doesn't fully resolve the matter.
This is a strategic motion, not a routine one
Because bifurcation reshapes how a case gets tried, it needs a clear, case-specific rationale — a generic request without a concrete efficiency or prejudice argument rarely persuades a judge to restructure the trial.