Edmo v. Corizon Incorporated et al

Filing 277

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO STAY re 272 Motion to Stay. IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants' Motion to Stay (Dkt. 272 ) is GRANTED. Defendants must preserve all relevant evidence, including electronically stored information subject to routine document retention removal practices, during the duration of this case. Defendants must continue to provide Plaintiff with presurgical treatment consistent with the Court's October 2019 presurgical order. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (ckh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ADREE EDMO,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00151-BLW
Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; HENRY ATENCIO;
JEFF ZMUDA; HOWARD KEITH
YORDY; CORIZON, INC.; SCOTT
ELIASON; MURRAY YOUNG;
RICHARD CRAIG; RONA
SIEGERT; CATHERINE
WHINNERY; AND DOES 1-15,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ JOINT
MOTION TO STAY

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Joint Motion to Stay this
litigation pending the resolution of Defendants’ appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States of America. Dkt. 272. Plaintiff does not oppose the stay, but
requests the stay include limited exceptions necessary to preserve critical
evidence. Dkt. 274 at 2. After careful consideration, the Court will exercise its
discretion to issue a stay.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY – 1

STANDARD OF LAW
“A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in its own
court.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). In
deciding whether issue a stay of litigation pending appeal, the Court must weigh
“the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship
or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and the
orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating
of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a
stay.”4 CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962).
DISCUSSION
As set forth above, the parties agree to a stay of this litigation pending
resolution of Defendants’ appeal to the Supreme Court. Plaintiff, however,
argues that a balancing of the hardships inquiry requires that the stay order
include allowance for “target discovery” and an evidence retention order. Dkt.
274 at 4. Specifically, that the order:
1) permit Plaintiff to depose three individual Defendants and one key
witness who have moved to other correctional systems or retired; 2)
require Defendants to provide Plaintiff ongoing access to her custody
and medical records; and 3) ensure preservation of relevant
documentary and electronic evidence regardless of Defendants’ default
retention practices.
Id. at 2.
Since the inception of this lawsuit, three defendants and one key witness
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY – 2

have either moved out of the state of Idaho, or retired from IDOC or Corizon.
Dkt. 223-1. Plaintiff’s claims include allegations that the three defendants “were
personally involved in violating her rights, and so their testimony is particularly
important to her claims.” Dkt. 274 at 7. Plaintiff asserts that, because deponents
have either changed jobs or retired, the potential for their memories of the
events and circumstances surrounding the claims to fade is high. Plaintiff argues
an order allowing for these depositions during the pendency of Defendants’
appeal to the Supreme Court is necessary to preserve critical evidence.
Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that there is a danger some evidence, in the form
of electronically stored information, may be destroyed during the pendency of
the appeal due to Defendants’ document retention policies.
Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request to perform the depositions during a
stay, asserting Plaintiff has failed to show she will be harmed by the Court
granting a stay in full. Dkt. 272 at 6–10; Dkt. 275 at 3. In reply, Defendants also
cite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as reason for the Court to deny Plaintiff’s
request to conduct these four depositions. Dkt. 275 at 3. According to
Defendants, one of the individuals to be deposed lives in Salt Lake City, and
also spends some time in Ketchum, Idaho. Id. Defendants’ counsel also points
to the factor that Plaintiff’s lead counsel works in San Francisco, California, a
location where residents are currently under stay in place orders. Id. Defendants

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY – 3

assert that, “deposing these witnesses would require out of state travel and could
endanger the health of counsel, the witnesses, and the public.” Id.
First, the Court will require Defendants to retain all evidence that is
discoverable under the broad scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
Any document retention policy that would ordinarily result in the Defendants’
destruction or deletion of such evidence must be suspended until the conclusion
of this lawsuit.
Second, the Court will require Defendants to continue to allow Plaintiff
ongoing access to her custodial and medical records—as the case is ongoing, so
is the need for Plaintiff’s access to relevant records.
Third, the Court will order this matter stayed without allowance for the
four depositions Plaintiff seeks to take during the pendency of the appeal.
Plaintiff argues that, because the four deponents have either changed
employment and moved out of state or retired, there is somehow greater risk
than usual that they will forget information. However, a change in a deponent’s
personal life, absent potential for the deponent to abscond to another country, to
die, or to lose the ability to remember due to a disability or generative disease,
carries no greater risk of loss of evidence than that encompassed in the ordinary
case of the passage of time. See Herbalife Int’l of Am. Inc. v. Ford, 2008 WL
11491587, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2008).

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY – 4

Plaintiff relies in part on Clinton v. Jones to support her argument that the
delay in taking the depositions will result in prejudice due to potential loss of
evidence. 520 U.S. 681, 707–08 (1997). In Jones, the appellate court found, and
the Supreme Court later affirmed, that it was an abuse of the trial court’s
discretion to issue a stay of the trial until the conclusion of President William
Jefferson Clinton’s presidency. Id. The Supreme Court’s decision on the issue
was published in May 1997. President Clinton’s second term of office expired
in January 2001—nearly four years later. Here, Defendants have already
submitted the issue to the Supreme Court for consideration. The Court and the
parties will know whether the Supreme Court takes up the appeal within
months, or even weeks, of this order. As such, the delay at issue is not
analogous. Further, as noted by Defendants, the COVID-19 pandemic and
resultant stay-at-home orders would currently prevent Plaintiff’s counsel from
performing any in-person depositions at this time, and would potentially prevent
deponents from being available to appear – even by way of video deposition.
Additionally, in weighing the possibility of prejudice resulting from a
stay issued without ongoing discovery, the Court notes that the primary and
most pressing claim in this matter has been adjudicated by this Court. See Order
of Dec. 13, 2018, Dkt. 149. Finally, the stay order will not apply to or impact
the Court’s enforcement of its October 2019 presurgical order. See Presurgical

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY – 5

Order, Dkt. 225. As the Court detailed in discussions with counsel during the
February 26, 2020 status conference, the presurgical order stands. See Dkt. 2713 at 19–20. Defendants must continue to comply with the order by providing all
necessary presurgical treatments while the Supreme Court considers whether to
take up the appeal.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. 272) is GRANTED.
2. Defendants must preserve all relevant evidence, including electronically
stored information subject to routine document retention removal
practices, during the duration of this case.
3. Defendants must continue to provide Plaintiff with presurgical treatment
consistent with the Court’s October 2019 presurgical order. 1

DATED: April 17, 2020

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

To this end, the Court notes Defendants’ status update of April 6, 2020 regarding unavoidable delays to
some presurgical treatment due to COVID-19 closures. As soon as the closures are no longer in effect, the
necessarily delayed presurgical treatment must immediately recommence.
1

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO STAY – 6