Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01380/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DAVID A. DUGAN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 

) No. CIV 04-1380 PHX RCB

vs. ) 

)

INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware ) O R D E R

corporation, authorized to do )

business in the state of )

Arizona, )

)

Defendant. ) )

In this employment discrimination action, originally filed in

the Superior Court of Arizona for Maricopa County, Plaintiff

complains that Defendant improperly discriminated against him on

the basis of disability. Notice of Removal (doc. # 1). Defendant

removed the case to this Court on July 7, 2004. Id. Currently

pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary

Judgment filed on September 13, 2005 (doc. # 36), Plaintiff's

Motion for Stay of Case Pending Resolution of Criminal Case and

Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f) filed on October 20, 2005 (doc.

# 40), and Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement Response to 

Case 2:04-cv-01380-RCB Document 44 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Under Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court

takes judicial notice of the proceedings in United States v. Dugan as

a matter of public record having a direct relation to the matters at

issue in this case. Fed. R. Evid. 201; United States ex rel.

Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,

248 (9th Cir. 1992).

- 2 -

Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Case (doc. # 42). Having carefully

considered the arguments raised, the Court now rules on Plaintiff's

motion (doc. # 40) and Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement

Response (doc. # 42).

I. BACKGROUND

Shortly after this action was brought, the United States

Attorney for the District of Arizona filed a criminal complaint

against Plaintiff in connection with threats he assertedly made

against Defendant, charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c),

Transmitting Threats Using Interstate Commerce.1 United States v.

Dugan, No. CR 04-1194-PHX-RGS (D. Ariz. 2004) (doc. # 1). The

parties subsequently executed a stipulation regarding Plaintiff's

deposition, approved by the Court on August 10, 2005, expressing

Plaintiff's intention to invoke blanket assertions of Fifth

Amendment privilege as to any questions posed to him by counsel. 

Stipulation (doc. # 32); Order (doc. # 34).

Defendants moved for summary judgment on September 13, 2005. 

Mot. (doc. # 36). Plaintiff then filed a stipulation (doc. # 38)

on October 12, 2005, requesting until October 20, 2005 within which

to serve and file his response. The extension was granted on

November 8, 2005. Order (doc. # 43). Instead of a response,

however, on October 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Stay of

Case Pending Resolution of Criminal Case and Continuance Pursuant

Case 2:04-cv-01380-RCB Document 44 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

to Rule 56(f) (doc. # 40).

On November 2, 2005, Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Motion

for Stay of Case. Resp. (doc. # 41). Defendant has since sought

to supplement its response with a copy of a Motion to Continue

Trial filed by Plaintiff's criminal defense counsel in United

States v. Dugan. Mot. (doc. # 42); United States v. Dugan, No. CR

04-1194-PHX-RGS (D. Ariz. 2004) (doc. # 42) (Defendant's Seventh

Motion to Continue Trial).

On March 6, 2006, based upon on its review of stipulated

facts, the court in United States v. Dugan found Plaintiff guilty

of violating 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) as charged in the indictment and

set the matter for sentencing on June 5, 2006. United States v.

Dugan, No. CR-04-1194-PHX-RGS (D. Ariz. 2004) (doc. ## 1, 65-66).

Plaintiff has neither filed a reply in support of his Motion

for Stay of Case (doc. # 40), nor filed a response in opposition to

Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement Response (doc. # 42),

and the time within which to serve and file these responsive

memoranda has now passed. See LRCiv 7.2(c) and App. A ("Time

Chart"). Under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(i), the Court may

deem a party's lack of opposition-- or untimely opposition-- as

consent to the granting of a motion, and may grant the motion

summarily if it is facially meritorious. LRCiv 7.2(i); Henry v.

Gill Indus., Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 1993).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The decision to stay an action is reserved to the inherent

discretion of the district court. See Mediterranean Enters. v.

Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) ("The trial

court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and

Case 2:04-cv-01380-RCB Document 44 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

calendar."). Although there is no Constitutional requirement to

stay civil proceedings in the face of pending criminal proceedings,

in deciding whether to grant such a stay the district court should

consider the extent to which the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights

are implicated as well as the following factors:

(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding 

expeditiously with this litigation or any particular 

aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs 

of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of

the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the 

convenience of the court in the management of its cases, 

and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the 

interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation;

and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil 

and criminal litigation.

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th

Cir. 1995).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has asked that this case be stayed pending the

resolution of the criminal charges against him in United States v.

Dugan, arguing that he is unable to respond to Defendant's Motion

for Summary Judgment (doc. # 36) without waiving his Fifth

Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Mot. (doc. # 40)

at 3-5. On the same basis, Plaintiff has requested a continuance

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(f) so that he may, upon the

determination of the criminal case, provide an affidavit supporting

his opposition without jeopardizing his Fifth Amendment rights. 

See id. at 6-7.

In view of the court's resolution of the charges against

Plaintiff in United States v. Dugan, and specifically the

stipulated facts upon which that finding was based, this Court

perceives no significant implication of Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment

Case 2:04-cv-01380-RCB Document 44 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

rights in proceeding with his civil case. In addition, the Court

finds that Defendant's interest in proceeding with the civil case

and the potential prejudice to Defendant from further delay far

outweighs any burden contemplated by Plaintiff's upcoming

sentencing. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that a stay in

this case would result in a tremendous saving of the litigants' and

counsels' resources, or would otherwise benefit the litigation

process.

For the same reasons, the Court sees no reason to allow a Rule

56(f) continuance at this time. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for

Stay of Case Pending Resolution of Criminal Case and Continuance

Pursuant to Rule 56(f) is denied. Defendant's Motion for Leave to

Supplement Response (doc. # 42) is denied and dismissed as moot.

Finally, the Court notes that although Plaintiff was allowed

an extension of time until October 20, 2005 to file a response to

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 36), he opted

instead to file a motion (doc. # 40) instead of a responsive

memorandum. The Court grants Plaintiff until May 8, 2006 to

respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 36).

IV. CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing analysis,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Case Pending

Resolution of Criminal Case and Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f)

(doc. # 40) is DENIED. Plaintiff shall have until May 8, 2006 to

respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 36).

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Leave to

. . . 

Case 2:04-cv-01380-RCB Document 44 Filed 04/25/06 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

Supplement its Response to Plaintiff's motion (doc. # 42) is DENIED

and dismissed as moot.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Copies to counsel of record

Case 2:04-cv-01380-RCB Document 44 Filed 04/25/06 Page 6 of 6