State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Bonetti et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 18 Motion to Stay Discovery and to Modify Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 12/27/11. (Anderson, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________________
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY )
COMPANY,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
No. 11-2056-STA-tmp
)
VINCENT BONETTI and TEIG
)
PEPPERS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TEIG PEPPERS’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY
AND TO MODIFY SCHEDULING ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Before the Court is Defendant Teig Peppers’ (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay Discovery
and to Modify the Scheduling Order (D.E. # 18), filed on December 12, 2011. Plaintiff filed a
Response to Defendant’s Motion (D.E. # 19) pm December 16, 2011. For the reasons set forth
below, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on January 25, 2011, seeking for the
Court to declare the meaning of the homeowner’s insurance policy taken out by Defendant and
determine whether the policy covers Defendant in a corresponding state tort suit. (D.E. # 1.)
According to the Complaint, “Defendant has demanded that Plaintiff . . . provide a defense and
coverage for [a personal injury lawsuit] filed against him by Vincent Bonetti [(“Bonetti”)].” (Id.
at 2.) Plaintiff “contends and asserts that it has no duty under [this insurance policy] to defend

1

and/or indemnify [Defendant] under the facts alleged in the Complaint filed by Bonetti.”1 (Id. at
3.)
Although Defendant filed an Answer on March 15, 2011 (D.E. # 11), the Complaint also
named Bonetti as a defendant. However, default judgment was entered against Bonetti on April
12, 2011 (D.E. # 16), and Defendant is the only defendant remaining in this lawsuit. After entry
of the Scheduling Order on April 13, 2011 (D.E. # 17), the docket reflects no activity until the
filing of the Motion to Stay now before the Court.
ANALYSIS
A stay of a civil case is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted only when justice
so requires.2 While nothing in the Constitution requires a civil action to be stayed in the face of
a pending criminal case, a court still has broad discretion in determining whether to stay a civil
action while a corresponding criminal case is pending.3 Simultaneous criminal and civil cases
involving the same or closely related facts may give rise to Fifth Amendment concerns sufficient
to warrant a stay of the civil proceedings.4 Courts evaluate whether to stay proceedings in light

1

Bonetti’s complaint against Defendant alleges that Defendant physically attacked
Bonetti, causing him severe personal injuries. (Id. at 4.)
2

Chao v. Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1037 (W.D. Mich. 2007).

3

See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Indeed, “in the absence
of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, parallel criminal and civil
proceedings are unobjectionable.” Chao, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 1037 (quotation and internal
punctuation omitted).
4

Id.
2

of the particular circumstances of each case.5 Courts should consider several factors in
determining whether to grant a stay:
(1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented
in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the
defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously, weighed against the prejudice to the 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.6
Additionally, Local Rule 7.2(a)(1) provides that acceptable motions in civil cases
“include or are accompanied by a supporting memorandum of facts and law (so identified).”7
Therefore, motions which do not comport with this requirement are unacceptable under the
Local Rules.8
Defendant presents the Court with three numbered paragraphs in the body of his Motion.
In the first, he notes that he is “charged with aggravated assault in the Criminal Court of Shelby
County.”9 In the second, he states that “[t]he trial in the Criminal Court is set for April 23,
2012.”10 Finally, he concludes his Motion with his request for relief, praying “that all
proceedings, including discovery, be stayed until such time as the case in Criminal Court is

5

Eastwood v. United States, No. 2:06-cv-164, 2008 WL 5412857, at *2 (E.D.
Tenn. Nov. 14, 2008).
6

Trs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886
F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (cited with approval by several district courts in the Sixth
Circuit, including the Eastern and Western District of Michigan, the Southern District of Ohio,
and the Eastern District of Tennessee).
7

L.R. 7.2(a)(1).

8

Id.

9

(Def.’s Mot. for Stay, D.E. # 18, at 1.)

10

(Id.)
3

concluded.”11 Notably, Defendant did not cite any legal authority in his Motion or mention the
civil action between himself and Bonetti currently pending in Shelby County Circuit Court.
In response, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion should be denied for two reasons.
First, Plaintiff avers that “the motion is not accompanied by a memorandum of law and facts in
support” and that it therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7.2(a)(1).12
Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s Motion “does not set forth a ‘good cause’ basis upon
which to justify a stay beyond the mere conclusory statement that a criminal case is pending.”13
Additionally, Plaintiff avers that the case need not be stayed to prevent interference with
Defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he has participated in
discovery in the civil tort litigation case.14 Moreover, Defendant pled the affirmative defense of
self defense in his Answer, which Plaintiff interprets as an extension of the scope of criminal
discovery and a waiver of Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.15
At the outset, the Court denies Defendant’s Motion on the procedural grounds raised by
Plaintiff. Defendant’s Motion has failed to comply with Local Rule 7.2(a)(1), as it does not
contain any citation to legal authority or a memorandum of facts and law. Furthermore, the
Court also denies Defendant’s Motion on the merits. Defendant has not demonstrated good
cause for the Court to grant his Motion, and the Court finds that a stay would be inappropriate.

11

(Id.)

12

(Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot., D.E. # 19, at 3.)

13

(Id.)

14

(Id. at 3-4.)

15

(Id. at 4.) The Court expresses no opinion on whether Defendant has waived his
Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
4

First, the Court notes that the state criminal case, the state tort case, and the federal
declaratory judgment action before the Court arise from the same factual incident: the altercation
between Defendant and Bonetti. But the character of these suits is very different. The case
before this Court is a declaratory judgment to determine the meaning of Defendant’s
homeowner’s insurance policy and whether Plaintiff will be required to cover Defendant’s
potential liability in the state court actions. The state cases concern Defendant’s personal civil
and criminal liability. Thus, while Defendant’s ultimate civil or criminal liability will be
determined by the state court system, this Court has jurisdiction to declare the meaning of his
insurance policy. Therefore, while the issues in the state criminal and civil cases and the case
before this Court may overlap to a certain extent, they do not overlap enough so as to require a
stay of the federal proceedings.
Second, Defendant has stated that the criminal case is set for trial in April of 2012. That
date is fast approaching, and the Court expects that some criminal discovery is already
underway. Additionally, Plaintiff pointed out that discovery has begun in the state tort case, and
Defendant has “answered under oath written discovery requests in the underlying tort litigation,
including a detailed statement of how the incident occurred and his involvement in it.”16 As
such, Defendant has expanded the scope of discovery in the criminal case against him to include
this statement, and that information would presumably be available to Plaintiff in the case at bar
as well. Additionally, Defendant pled the affirmative defense of self defense in his Answer in
the case before the Court. Therefore, he has revealed his defense strategy, and allowing this case
to continue will not reveal information which is not already available. Although the facts of the

16

(Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot., D.E. # 19, at 4.)
5

state and federal cases are closely related, this prior discovery, combined with Defendant’s
pleadings in the case at bar, lead the Court to conclude that ongoing federal litigation will not
implicate Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights.
Furthermore, Plaintiff, as Defendant’s insurance company, faces substantial costs “in the
defense [to] be provided to its insured under reservation of rights in the pending civil action in
state court.”17 Plaintiff has an interest in the timely delineation of its rights and obligations under
the homeowner’s insurance agreement. After weighing this interest against Defendant’s interest
and taking into account all other relevant circumstances, the Court finds that Defendant has not
demonstrated good cause as to why a stay would be merited in this case. Nor do the factors
listed in Transworld weigh in favor of a stay. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for a Stay is
DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have sixty
(60) days from the entry of this order to take the depositions of Defendant and Bonetti, and
dispositive motions shall be due thirty (30) days after the depositions are completed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: December 27, 2011.

17

(Id.)
6