UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

MARK S. WEINBERGER MD; MARK S. )

WEINBERGER MD PC; THE NOSE AND )

SINUS CENTER LLC; MERRILLVILLE )

CENTER FOR ADVANCED SURGERY LLC;)

SUBSPECIALTY CENTERS OF AMERICA )

LLC, ) 

 )

Plaintiffs )

 )

v. ) CIVIL NO. 2:12 cv 12 

 )

THE MEDICAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, )

INC. nka Proassurance Indemnity )

Company, Inc., )

 )

Defendant )

OPINION AND ORDER 

This matter is before the court on the Motion for Leave to

Stay the Filing of the Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting [DE

14] filed by the defendant, The Medical Assurance Company, Inc.,

on July 6, 2012. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is

DENIED. 

Background

In 2006, Medical Assurance Company filed a complaint against

Mark S. Weinberger and his business entities in the Northern

District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that it did

not owe a duty to defend or to provide coverage for the medical

malpractice claims pending against Mark S. Weinberger. The

Weinberger defendants filed an answer on March 7, 2011, alleging
that Medical Assurance failed to provide the required notice,

waived its opportunity to deny coverage, and incurred the risk. 

Weinberger and his business entities filed a separate complaint on January 9, 2012, against the plaintiff from the 2006

case, Medical Assurance. Medical Assurance now moves to stay

discovery, arguing that the issues raised by Weinberger and his

business entities are identical to those pending before the court

in the 2006 case. The Weinberger defendants dispute this,

arguing that the 2006 case does not include any allegations of

bad faith or request money damages for Medical Assurance’s bad

faith, and for these reasons, the scope of discovery will differ. 

Discussion

The court has incidental power to stay proceedings, which

stems from its inherent power to manage its docket. Landis v.

North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57 S.Ct. 163, 166, 81

L.Ed. 153 (1936); Walker v. Monsanto Co. Pension Plan, 472

F.Supp.2d 1053, 1054 (S.D. Ill. 2006). The decision to grant a

stay is committed to the sound discretion of the court and must

be exercised consistent with principles of fairness and judicial

economy. Brooks v. Merck & Co., 443 F.Supp.2d 994, 997 (S.D.

Ill. 2006); Rutherford v. Merck & Co., 428 F.Supp. 2d 842, 845

(S.D. Ill. 2006); George v. Kraft Foods Global, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 92886, *4 (S.D. Ill. 2006). "Courts often consider the

2
following factors when deciding whether to stay an action: (i)

whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage

the non-moving party, (ii) whether a stay will simplify the

issues in question and streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a

stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on

the court." Abbott Laboratories v. Matrix Laboratories, Inc.,

2009 WL 3719214, *2 (N.D. Ill. 2009). "The general test for

imposing a stay requires the court to 'balance interests favoring

a stay against interests frustrated by the action' in light of

the 'court's paramount obligation to exercise jurisdiction timely

in cases properly before it.'" SanDisk Corp. v. Phison Electronics Corp., 538 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1066 (W.D. Wis. 2008) (citing

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413, 1416

(Fed. Cir. 1997)). 

Medical Assurance requests a stay pending ruling on the

motion to consolidate that it intends to file, arguing that the

defenses presented in the Weinberger defendants’ answer filed in

the 2006 case closely resemble its allegations here. However,

Medical Assurance later notified the court that it did not intend

to file the motion to consolidate until after the district court

ruled on the this court’s report and recommendation to enter a

default judgment against the Weinberger defendants, explaining

that if the district court accepted the recommendation to enter

3
dispositve sanctions against the Weinberger defendants, the

present motion would be moot. 

The district court now has ruled on the motion, and although

it declined to enter a default judgment, the district court did

enter a default against the Weinberger defendants so that they

are prohibited from participating in the 2006 case in any way,

cannot support or oppose any claims or defenses, and cannot

introduce evidence. The district court noted that this sanction

was consistent with other enumerated sanctions including striking

the pleadings and that the Weinberger defendants are to be

treated as though they never entered an appearance. For these

reasons, the issues presented in the Weinberger defendants’

answer and the present complaint no longer overlap. The sanctions interfere with the Weinberger defendants’ ability to pursue

these allegations in the 2006 case, and discovery no longer will

need to be conducted on these issues. Based on Medical Assurance’s notification to the court, it appears that it no longer

intends to file a motion to consolidate and the issue is moot. 

Therefore, the Motion for Leave to Stay the Filing of the Report

of Parties’ Planning Meeting [DE 14] filed by the defendant,

Medical Assurance Company, on July 6, 2012, is DENIED. 

4
ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2012

s/ ANDREW P. RODOVICH

 United States Magistrate Judge

5