Carter et al v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC et al
Filing
117
DECISION & ORDER granting 115 Motion to Stay. Signed by Hon. Marian W. Payson on 12/21/2018. Within seven (7) days of the issuance by the Second Circuit of its decision in Ruzhinskaya, counsel shall confer and submit to this Court a jointly-proposed amended scheduling order. (KAH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
MARISSA CARTER, et al.,
DECISION & ORDER
Plaintiffs,
14-CV-6275G
v.
CIOX HEALTH, LLC,
f/k/a HealthPort Technologies, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________________
Plaintiffs Marissa Carter, Evelyn Grys, Bruce Currier, Sharon Koning, Sue
Beehler, Marsha Mancuso, and Jaclyn Cuthbertson (“plaintiffs”) commenced this putative class
action against CIOX Health, LLC, formerly known as HealthPort Technologies, LLC, the
Rochester General Hospital, the Unity Hospital of Rochester, and the F.F. Thompson Hospital,
Inc. (“defendants”) alleging that they systematically overcharged patients who requested copies
of their medical records, in violation of New York Public Health Law § 18. Currently pending is
defendants’ motion to stay this matter pending resolution of an appeal before the Second Circuit
in a similar case, Spiro v. HealthPort Technologies, LLC, 18-1034 (2d Cir. 2018)
(“Ruzhinskaya”).1 (Docket # 115). Plaintiffs join defendants’ request to the extent it seeks a stay
pending a decision from the Second Circuit in the Ruzhinskaya matter. (Docket # 116).
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every
court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also
1
# 1)
The notice of appeal in the matter was filed by plaintiff Tatyana Ruzhinskaya. (See 18-1034 at Docket
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) (“[t]he [d]istrict [c]ourt has broad discretion to stay
proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket”). In determining whether to
exercise its discretion to enter a stay, a court should consider:
(1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously with the civil ligation as balanced against the
prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and
burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the
interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the
public interest.
Fairbank Reconstruction Corp. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., 2014 WL 693001, *1
(W.D.N.Y. 2014); see also McCracken v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2018 WL 4233703, *2 (W.D.N.Y.
2018) (above-articulated factors must be considered in determining whether to stay proceedings
pending decision in Ruzhinskaya).
Weighing these interests, this Court finds that a stay is warranted. Given the lack
of opposition, there is little prejudice to the plaintiffs, and the interests of the defendants, the
Court, the public, and possible nonparties are all advanced by a stay pending decision from the
Second Circuit that “will provide invaluable guidance to the Court on key trial issues in this
case.” See McCracken v. Verisma Sys., Inc., 2018 WL 4233703 at *4.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings (Docket
# 115) is GRANTED. Within seven (7) days of the issuance by the Second Circuit of its
2
decision in Ruzhinskaya, counsel shall confer and submit to this Court a jointly-proposed
amended scheduling order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marian W. Payson
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
December 21, 2018
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?