Cisco Systems, Inc. et al v. Sheikh et al

Filing 127

ORDER : (1) DENYING MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS UNTIL EXPIRATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; (2) RELIEVING IN-PART PARTIES FROM SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRE-FILING CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; denying 108 Motion to Stay. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2020)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

vs.
ZAHID HASSAN SHEIKH, ET AL.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ADVANCED DIGITAL SOLUTIONS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

12

CASE NO. 4:18-cv-07602-YGR
ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO STAY
CIVIL PROCEEDINGS UNTIL EXPIRATION
OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS;
(2) RELIEVING IN-PART PARTIES FROM
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRE-FILING
CONFERENCE REQUIREMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 108, 111, 114

Third- Party Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
15
16
17

RAHI SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.,
Third-Party Defendants.
The Court is in receipt of the motion to stay civil proceedings until the expiration of the

18

statute of limitations. (Dkt. No. 108.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

19

The Court’s analysis is guided by the test set forth in Keating v. Office of Thrift

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995). There, the Ninth Circuit found:
The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil
proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. Federal
Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.1989);
Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368,
1375 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993, 101 S.Ct. 529, 66
L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the
rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and
criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.”
Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1374. “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its
discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when the interests of justice
seem [ ] to require such action.’ ” Id. at 1375 (quoting United States
v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n. 27, 90 S.Ct. 763, 769 n. 27, 25 L.Ed.2d 1
(1970)).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel
criminal proceeding should be made “in light of the particular
circumstances and competing interests involved in the case.”
Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902. This means the decisionmaker should
consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights
are implicated.” Id. In addition, the decisionmaker should generally
consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect
of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden
which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on
defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its
cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of
persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the
public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 903.
Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25.
Here, the Court finds insufficient justification for staying the litigation. First, case law is
replete with examples of the need to resolve cases expeditiously. Trials can be significantly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

impacted by a delay from the underlying events as memories fade. Second, given the close of

12

discovery (with a narrowly defined exception), the benefit of a stay is not commensurate with

13

other circumstances where parallel litigation, whether prosecutorial or not, has a present,

14

identifiable impact absent a stay. Here, those individuals who had concerns, exercised their Fifth

15

Amendment rights. The case will have to proceed without such testimony. Third, the Court and

16

the public benefit from resolution of civil matters through the judicial system. In order to manage

17

the never-ending filing of civil actions, judges must keep cases on track for resolution either by

18

way of settlement or trial. Further, stays of an undefined period are disfavored. Delaying

19

resolution on the theoretical possibility of criminal prosecution does not serve the public or the

20

public’s interest. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

21

Additionally, based upon the Court’s review of the pre-filing letters submitted by the

22

parties (Dkt. Nos. 111, 114), no pre-filing conference is required for third-party defendants’

23

anticipated motion for summary judgment. Thus, the parties are RELIEVED in-part from the

24

summary judgment prefiling conference. Any other party seeking to file a motion for summary

25

judgment is reminded to first request permission to do so through a pre-filing letter.

26

The parties are further reminded of the requirement to file separate statements of fact in the

27

format set forth in paragraph 9(c) of this Court’s Standing Order, including the requirement that

28

counsel attest that the evidence cited for each fact or dispute fairly and accurately supports the fact
2

1
2

or dispute.
As previewed for the parties at the case management conference, the Court considers

3

summary judgment a tool to be used prudently, when there are no disputed issues of material fact.

4

To the extent there are triable issues of material fact, summary judgment will be denied with a

5

succinct denial order, without extensive commentary, so that the determination is left wholly for

6

the trier of fact.

7

This Order terminates Docket Number 108.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: April 17, 2020
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3