Springsteen v. Garrett et al

Filing 25

OPINION AND ORDER denying 19 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID SPRINGSTEEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 11-11743
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

CATHY M. GARRETT, LYNN M WADE,
CAVEN WEST, and JOHNNIE JOHNSON,
Defendants.
____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING INDIVIDUALLY NAMED DEFENDANTS
CATHY M. GARRETT’S, CAVEN WEST’S AND JOHNNIE JOHNSON’S
MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
On April 21, 2011, Plaintiff David Springsteen filed this action against Defendants
in their individual and official capacities. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was
terminated from his position as Deputy Chief of Staff of the Wayne County Clerk’s
Office (“Clerk’s Office”) in retaliation for his reports of misconduct by employees within
the Clerk’s Office to the internal affairs division of the Wayne County Sheriff’s
Department. Presently before the Court is a motion to stay the proceedings, filed by
Individual Defendants Cathy M. Garrett, Caven West, and Johnnie Johnson (hereafter
“Defendants”) on December 8, 2011. Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on
December 22, 2011. On January 13, 2012, this Court issued a notice informing the
parties that it is dispensing with oral argument with respect to Defendants’ motion to stay
pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). On January 18, 2012,
Defendants filed “supplemental exhibits.” They have not filed a reply brief.

In their motion, Defendants seek to stay Plaintiff’s lawsuit pending “parallel
criminal proceedings.” Although acknowledging that no criminal proceedings have been
initiated or indictments issued against any of the defendants, they argue that Plaintiff’s
Complaint indicates that the Wayne County Sheriff is conducting a formal investigation
of possible public corruption and/or criminal misconduct within the Concealed Carry
Weapon (“CCW”) Division of the Clerk’s Office. Defendants argue that a failure to stay
these civil proceedings will undermine their Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination.
A court has the broad discretion to stay a civil proceeding when there is a pending
or impending parallel criminal action. See Chao v. Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1037
(W.D. Mich. 2007) (citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S. Ct. 163,
166 (1936)). Failure to stay a civil proceeding where there is a pending parallel criminal
action targeting one of the parties to the civil action could undermine the party’s Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In re Par Pharm., Inc. Sec. Litig., 133
F.R.D. 12, 13 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). Several factors are relevant to a court’s decision whether
to grant a stay, including:
1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those
presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the
defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused
by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the
interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest.
Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 1037 (citing Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat’l

2

Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)).
“In general, courts recognize that the case for a stay is strongest where the
defendant has already been indicted.” Id. (citing cases). Pre-indictment requests for a
stay usually are denied “because the risk of self-incrimination is reduced at the
pre-indictment stage, and because of the uncertainty surrounding when, if ever,
indictments will be issued, as well as the effect of the delay on the civil trial. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beckham-Easley, No. Civ. A. 01-5530, 2002 WL 31111766, at *2
(E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2002) (unpublished opinion) (citing Walsh Sec., Inc. v. Critso Prop.
Mgmt. Ltd., 7 F. Supp. 2d. 523, 527 (D.N.J. 1998) (additional citations omitted)). Some
courts have expressed that, where a defendant filing a motion to stay has not been
indicted, the motion may be denied on that ground alone. Id. (citing United States v.
Private Sanitation Indus. Assoc’n of Nassau/Suffolk, Inc., 811 F. Supp. 802 (E.D.N.Y.
1992); SEC v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir.1980)). However,
other courts have expressed that “a stay should not be categorically denied solely because
the defendant has not yet been indicated.” Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 1038 (citing
Walsh Sec., Inc., 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527) (“It is ‘still possible’ to obtain a stay, even though
an indictment or information has not yet been returned, if the Government is conducting
an active parallel criminal investigation.”)) It matters not which line of cases this Court
would be inclined to follow, as Defendants concede that there have been no criminal
proceedings initiated or indictments issued and there is no evidence that there is any
ongoing criminal investigation.
3

In their supplemental exhibits, Defendants offer an email sent December 7, 2011,
by their counsel to Donn Fresard, the Chief of Staff of the Wayne County Prosecutor’s
Office, inquiring about the status of an investigation of the Clerk’s Office. (Doc. 24 Ex.
A.) They, however, do not offer any communication in response to the inquiry.
Defendants also offer emails between Defendant West and Chief of Staff Fresard in
September 2010, as well as Plaintiff’s statement that he was told in March 2010 that “a
long time ongoing investigation was taking place and [that] it could be months before
anything was complete.” (See id. Exs. B, C, D.) Nevertheless, to the extent this evidence
suggests that an investigation was initiated, it does not demonstrate that any investigation
continues one to two years later.1
Absent evidence of a pending investigation, the Court cannot determine inter alia
who is being investigated or the conduct for which they are being investigated. As such,
the Court has no way of assessing whether there is any overlap between the civil and
criminal proceedings. “If there is no overlap, then there would be no danger of selfincrimination and no need for a stay.” Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 1039 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court in Fleming therefore found the
extent of the overlap to be “the most important factor” in the court’s analysis of whether a

1

The evidence also does not suggest who was being investigated or the scope of
the investigation. The subject heading of the emails between Chief of Staff Fresard and
Defendant West is simply: “Re: Alleged Fraudulent Activity – Issuance of Concealed
Weapons Permit.” (Doc. 24 Ex. B.) Defendant West only refers in the body of his email
to “alleged fraudulent issuance of Concealed Weapons Permits by certain employees.”
(Id.)
4

stay is appropriate. Id. This Court believes that the other factors in fact cannot be
realistically evaluated without this information.
In short, without evidence that there in fact is a parallel criminal investigation or
proceeding, this Court cannot find justification for a stay of these civil proceedings.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that the motion to stay civil proceedings filed by individually
named Defendants Garrett, West, and Johnson is DENIED.
Date: February 3, 2012

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:
Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
Jerome R. Watson, Esq.
Adam S. Forman, Esq.
Brian M. Schwartz, Esq.
Ronnie E. Cromer Jr., Esq.

5