Clark v. Djukic et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER granting in part 25 Motion to Stay insofar as it seeks to stay this case and denying it in part as moot insofar as it seeks a protective order. Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STAY this case. Telephonic Status hearing set f or 5/14/2015 09:15 AM in US District Court - Hammond before Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry. The Court DENIES without prejudice the 21 Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Deposition of Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 11/25/14. (mc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
WILLIAM B. CLARK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW DJUKIC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Cause No.: 2:14-CV-160-JTM-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Deposition
of Plaintiff [DE 21], filed on October 2, 2014, by Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. d/b/a St.
Margaret Mercy Hospital (St. Margaret). Instead of responding to this motion, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Stay Discovery or for Protective Order [DE 25] on October 8, 2014. St. Margaret filed
a response on October 10, 2014; Plaintiff did not file a reply.
Plaintiff alleges that on May 20, 2012, he was pulled over for erratic driving and eventually
taken to St. Margaret’s so a blood sample could be drawn to test his blood alcohol content. The test
came back showing a blood alcohol content of 0.073%, just under the legal limit of 0.08%. Plaintiff
alleges that the police then instructed Plaintiff to provide a urine sample. He refused. Plaintiff
alleges that, without first obtaining a warrant, the police and hospital staff forcibly restrained
Plaintiff and inserted a catheter through Plaintiff’s penis and into his bladder so that they could get
a urine sample. Plaintiff states that he is currently facing criminal charges for Operation of a Motor
Vehicle with Controlled Substance in Body, a Class C Misdemeanor, resulting from the same stop.
St. Margaret, which is not a party to the related criminal case, has served Plaintiff with
written discovery requests and has noticed a deposition. Plaintiff has not answered these requests
and has refused to sit for a deposition. If Plaintiff answers these requests frankly, he will be

providing the Government with ammunition to use against him in the related criminal case. But if
he invokes his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself he will find himself undermining
his civil case.
Plaintiff now asks that this case be stayed or that some sort of protective order be granted.
Courts have an inherent authority to stay cases, and the Court, in its discretion, may stay civil
proceedings when the interests of justice so require. Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440,
450-51 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (citing Benevolence Int’l Found. v. Ashcroft, 200 F. Supp. 2d 935, 938
(N.D. Ill. 2002)). A stay of civil proceedings is sometimes appropriate to protect competing interests
arising from parallel civil and criminal proceedings involving the same subject matter. Nowaczyk
v. Matingas, 146 F.R.D. 169, 174 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (concerning discovery of civil defendants who
were the subject of simultaneous criminal investigations); Cruz v. County of DuPage, 1997 WL
370194, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 1997) (citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
(1936)). The Constitution does not require this, however. Benevolence, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 938; SEC
v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308
(1976)).
Courts in the Seventh Circuit have considered the following factors as a guideline:

(1)

the interest of the non-moving party in proceeding
expeditiously with the litigation or any particular aspect of it,
and the potential prejudice to the non-moving party of a
delay;

(2)

the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings
may impose on the moving party;

(3)

the convenience of the court in the management of its cases,
and the efficient use of judicial resources;

2

(4)

the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and

(5)

the interest of the public in pending civil and criminal
litigation.

Jones, 216 F.R.D. at 451 (citing Benevolence, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 938 (citing Nowaczyk, 146 F.R.D.
at 174)).
As for the interests of the non-moving parties, it does not appear that there is any specific
inconvenience outside of the extra time required to resolve this case. St Margaret argues that this
motion should have been brought earlier in this case, but makes no showing a stay would impose
any particular burden on it. It also argues that the statute of limitations hasn’t run and this case could
have been brought after the criminal matter was resolved. This may be true, but, if anything, it shows
that a stay would not be prejudicial since Plaintiff had the option of delaying this case unilaterally
by filing it later than he did.
Regarding the second point, whether or not this stay is granted may be decisive to Plaintiff’s
case. Full responses to written discovery and frank answers to the sort of questions that will be asked
at a deposition would hurt his chances in the related criminal case by making it much easier for the
Government to prove certain crucial facts. On the other hand, failures to get certain things in the
record could result in an adverse ruling on summary judgment in this case. Moreover, staying this
case for a time does not put much burden on the courts, nor is it apparent that the interests of any
outsiders are at stake. In short, Plaintiff would probably get a significant benefit in having this case
stayed; Defendants stand to lose very little. Indeed, aside from St. Margaret, none of the Defendants
have voiced any objection to the stay. And St. Margaret is a large institution—the sort of place that
sues and gets sued often. A stay is less burdensome on it than it would be on a natural person for
whom such a lawsuit would likely be a novel and more distressing, not to mention expensive,
3

experience. A stay costs St. Margaret money too, of course, but this cost is proportionably smaller.
In light of all this, the Court GRANTS in part the Motion to Stay Discovery or for
Protective Order [DE 25] insofar as it seeks to stay this case. The Court DENIES it in part as moot
insofar as it seeks a protective order. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to STAY this case.
The Court SETS this matter for a telephonic status hearing on May 14, 2015, at 9:15am (CST). The
Court DENIES without prejudice the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Deposition of
Plaintiff [DE 21]. Should Plaintiff fail to cooperate in discovery once the stay is lifted, St. Margaret
(or any other party) may, of course, make appropriate motions.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2014.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
cc:

All counsel of record

4