SOKOL v. CLARK, M.D. P.C. et al

Filing 206

ORDER granting, in part, and denying, in part, 202 Defendants' Motion to Stay Trial (details more fully stated in said Order); that Defendants' Motion to Stay Trial 202 is granted to the extent that the Court will continue trial until the conclusion of Defendant Brent Clark's criminal sentencing presently scheduled for 3/13/18, but is denied at this time to the extent that Defendants seek a stay throughout Defendant Brent Clark's service of his sentence; that, with the exception of the trial date, all other deadlines remain as scheduled; that a Status Conference to reschedule trial will be held on 3/19/18 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5B. The presence of lead trial counsel and the parties is required; that nothing in this Order shall preclude the parties from continuing their negotiations to resolve this matter short of trial. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/23/18. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRANDY SOKOL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRENT CLARK, M.D., P.C. and BRENT
CLARK in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-1477
Hon. Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This employment and housing discrimination case is scheduled for jury selection and trial
on March 5, 2018, and the Court held a final pretrial conference on February 21, 2018. (Docket
Nos. 138, 197). At the final pretrial conference, the Court made a number of rulings, and the
parties indicated that they are prepared to proceed to trial. (Docket No. 197). The parties, having
made a good-faith effort to negotiate prior to the conference, continued their discussions but were
unable to resolve this matter. (Id.). Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Stay Trial
and supporting brief, (Docket Nos. 202, 203), and Plaintiff’s brief in opposition, (Docket No. 205).
After careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, and for the following reasons, Defendants’
Motion, (Docket No. 202), is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
In so holding, it is well settled that a court has discretion to stay a proceeding where “the
interests of justice . . . require such action.” United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970).
The Supreme Court has held that “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent
in every court to control the disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants” and that courts must “weigh competing interests and
maintain an even balance” in determining whether a stay is warranted. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299

1

U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (internal citations omitted); see also In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685
F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982). Where there are parallel criminal proceedings, a stay of civil
proceedings “may be warranted in certain circumstances,” but the same “is not constitutionally
required.” Walsh Sec., Inc. v. Cristo Prop. Mgmt., Ltd., 7 F. Supp. 2d 523, 526 (D.N.J. 1998).
Generally, courts consider six factors when deciding whether to grant a stay: (1) the extent to
which the issues in the criminal and civil case overlap; (2) the status of the case, including whether
the defendant has been indicted; (3) the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously weighed
against the prejudice to plaintiff caused by a delay; (4) the private interests of and burdens on the
defendant; (5) the interests of the court; and (6) the public interest. Id. at 527.
The Court finds that Defendant Brent Clark meets a number of the criteria set forth for a
stay of these proceedings. See id. However, on further consideration, the Court holds that both
Plaintiff and Defendants will be served by a continuance for good cause shown, rather than by a
stay. To this end, Defendant Brent Clark was indicted at Criminal Action No. 17-103 on April 11,
2017. (Docket Nos. 1, 2 at No. 17-CR-103). Dr. Clark was charged at Counts One through
Fourteen with fourteen counts of distribution of oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance,
and Amphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(C), and at Count Fifteen with one count of health care fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1347. (Id.). On October 16, 2017, Dr. Clark pled guilty to Counts Five through Thirteen and
Fifteen. (Docket Nos. 78, 79 at No. 17-CR-103). He is scheduled to be sentenced before Judge
Arthur J. Schwab on March 13, 2018. (Docket No. 82 at No. 17-CR-103). As stated above, trial
in the instant matter is scheduled imminently. (Docket No. 138).1
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 provides that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within

1

Unless otherwise specified, citations to the docket entries refer to those included in Civil Action No. 16-1477.

2

a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time.” FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1). Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 16 similarly provides that “[a] schedule may be modified only for good
cause and with the judge’s consent.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). “‘Good cause’ is understood to
mean ‘[a] legally sufficient reason,’ and it reflects ‘the burden placed on a litigant to show why a
request should be granted or an action excused.’” Joseph v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp., 651 F.3d 348,
351 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 251 (9th ed. 2009)). The “good cause”
inquiry “focuses on the moving party’s burden to show due diligence.” Race Tires Am., Inc. v.
Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 614 F.3d 57, 84 (3d Cir. 2010). A court has “wide discretion to manage
its docket.” N’Jai v. Bentz, No. 13-CV-1212, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78029, at *8 (W.D. Pa. June
14, 2016); see also Hoffman v. Kennedy, 30 F.R.D. 50, 51 (E.D. Pa. 1962); Miller v. Ashcroft, 76
F. App’x 457, 461 (3d Cir. 2003). Under the abuse of discretion standard, a trial court’s control
of its docket will not be disturbed “except upon the clearest showing that the procedures have
resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.” Miller, 76 F. App’x at
461; see also In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 685 F.2d 810, 817 (3d Cir. 1982) (explaining that
parties challenging a court’s ruling “have a heavy burden to bear, . . . as matters of docket control
. . . are committed to the sound discretion of the district court”). In managing its docket, a court
must remain mindful that the “Federal Rules are meant to be applied in such a way as to promote
justice.” McCurdy v. Am. Bd. of Plastic Surgery, 157 F.3d 191, 197 (3d Cir. 1998).
In exercising its discretion to continue the trial, the Court notes that during the final pretrial
conference, Plaintiff advised that Dr. Clark would be called during her case-in-chief as on cross.
(See Docket No. 197). The Court held that Dr. Clark’s conviction for health care fraud will be
admissible as evidence of crimen falsi. (See Docket No. 197). Given same, coupled with the fact
that the Court has learned that Plaintiff was part of the investigation against Dr. Clark in his

3

criminal case, there is a potential that Dr. Clark may make statements during trial that would have
implications in his criminal case.2 Indeed, it is well settled that a court may consider any
information about, inter alia, a defendant’s background and history at a sentencing hearing. See
18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background,
character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may
receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.”). Here, experienced
criminal defense counsel has advised Dr. Clark that a continuance of this civil trial is in his best
interest, as he faces a period of incarceration in his criminal case. In this Court’s estimation, such
circumstances establish good cause to continue trial. The Court further finds that Plaintiff will
suffer no prejudice, as no particularly unique injury to Plaintiff has been established; Plaintiff is
not aged or in such poor health that an expedited trial is necessitated; and Plaintiff has not proffered
any fact or reason why a relatively slight delay of trial would harm her.
For these reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Trial [202] is GRANTED to
the extent that the Court will continue trial until the conclusion of Defendant Brent Clark’s criminal
sentencing presently scheduled for March 13, 2018, but is DENIED at this time to the extent that
Defendants seek a stay throughout Defendant Brent Clark’s service of his sentence.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, with the exception of the trial date, all other deadlines
remain as scheduled.

2

The same is true as to Carl T. Wilson, who is also known as Ted Wilson. Mr. Wilson pled guilty to Counts One and
Two of the Superseding Indictment filed in Criminal Action No. 17-103. (Docket No. 86 at No. 17-CR-103). He is
scheduled to be sentenced before Judge Schwab on March 15, 2018. (Docket No. 88 at 17-CR-103). Mr. Wilson is
included as a witness on Defendants’ witness list. (Docket No. 147).

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a status conference to reschedule trial will be held on
Monday, March 19, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 5B. The presence of lead trial counsel
and the parties is required.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall preclude the parties from
continuing their negotiations to resolve this matter short of trial.
s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record

5