Rule 42(b) provides that separation is proper when a trial court determines that severance is 'in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition or economy.' See FDIC v. Selaiden Builders, Inc., 973 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1051, 113 S. Ct. 1944, 123 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1993); Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d. 1285, 1293 (5th Cir. 1994). The decision to grant separate trials rests within the sole discretion of the trial court. Id., quoting First Tex. Sav. Ass'n v. Reliance Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 1171, 1174, n. 2 (5th Cir. 1992).
The Fifth Circuit has recognized that 'there is an important limitation on ordering a separate trial of issues under Rule 42(b): the issue to be tried must be so distinct and separate from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice.' McDaniel v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 987 F.2d 298, 305 and n.22 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Moreover, 'even if bifurcation might somehow promote judicial economy, courts should not order separate trials when bifurcation would result in unnecessary delay, additional expense, or some ...