UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

WILLIAM B. CLARK, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Cause No.: 2:14-CV-160-JTM-PRC

)

MATTHEW DJUKIC, et al., )

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Deposition

of Plaintiff [DE 21], filed on October 2, 2014, by Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. d/b/a St.

Margaret Mercy Hospital (St. Margaret). Instead of responding to this motion, Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Stay Discovery or for Protective Order [DE 25] on October 8, 2014. St. Margaret filed

a response on October 10, 2014; Plaintiff did not file a reply. 

Plaintiff alleges that on May 20, 2012, he was pulled over for erratic driving and eventually

taken to St. Margaret’s so a blood sample could be drawn to test his blood alcohol content. The test

came back showing a blood alcohol content of 0.073%, just under the legal limit of 0.08%. Plaintiff

alleges that the police then instructed Plaintiff to provide a urine sample. He refused. Plaintiff

alleges that, without first obtaining a warrant, the police and hospital staff forcibly restrained

Plaintiff and inserted a catheter through Plaintiff’s penis and into his bladder so that they could get

a urine sample. Plaintiff states that he is currently facing criminal charges for Operation of a Motor

Vehicle with Controlled Substance in Body, a Class C Misdemeanor, resulting from the same stop. 

St. Margaret, which is not a party to the related criminal case, has served Plaintiff with

written discovery requests and has noticed a deposition. Plaintiff has not answered these requests

and has refused to sit for a deposition. If Plaintiff answers these requests frankly, he will be
providing the Government with ammunition to use against him in the related criminal case. But if

he invokes his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself he will find himself undermining

his civil case. 

Plaintiff now asks that this case be stayed or that some sort of protective order be granted.

Courts have an inherent authority to stay cases, and the Court, in its discretion, may stay civil

proceedings when the interests of justice so require. Jones v. City of Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440,

450-51 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (citing Benevolence Int’l Found. v. Ashcroft, 200 F. Supp. 2d 935, 938

(N.D. Ill. 2002)). A stay of civil proceedings is sometimes appropriate to protect competing interests

arising from parallel civil and criminal proceedings involving the same subject matter. Nowaczyk

v. Matingas, 146 F.R.D. 169, 174 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (concerning discovery of civil defendants who

were the subject of simultaneous criminal investigations); Cruz v. County of DuPage, 1997 WL

370194, at *2 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 1997) (citing Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55

(1936)). The Constitution does not require this, however. Benevolence, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 938; SEC

v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308

(1976)). 

Courts in the Seventh Circuit have considered the following factors as a guideline:

(1) the interest of the non-moving party in proceeding

expeditiously with the litigation or any particular aspect of it,

and the potential prejudice to the non-moving party of a

delay; 

(2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings

may impose on the moving party; 

(3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases,

and the efficient use of judicial resources; 

2
(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and 

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

litigation. 

Jones, 216 F.R.D. at 451 (citing Benevolence, 200 F. Supp. 2d at 938 (citing Nowaczyk, 146 F.R.D.

at 174)).

 As for the interests of the non-moving parties, it does not appear that there is any specific

inconvenience outside of the extra time required to resolve this case. St Margaret argues that this

motion should have been brought earlier in this case, but makes no showing a stay would impose

any particular burden on it. It also argues that the statute of limitations hasn’t run and this case could

have been brought after the criminal matter was resolved. This may be true, but, if anything, it shows

that a stay would not be prejudicial since Plaintiff had the option of delaying this case unilaterally

by filing it later than he did. 

Regarding the second point, whether or not this stay is granted may be decisive to Plaintiff’s

case. Full responses to written discovery and frank answers to the sort of questions that will be asked

at a deposition would hurt his chances in the related criminal case by making it much easier for the

Government to prove certain crucial facts. On the other hand, failures to get certain things in the

record could result in an adverse ruling on summary judgment in this case. Moreover, staying this

case for a time does not put much burden on the courts, nor is it apparent that the interests of any

outsiders are at stake. In short, Plaintiff would probably get a significant benefit in having this case

stayed; Defendants stand to lose very little. Indeed, aside from St. Margaret, none of the Defendants

have voiced any objection to the stay. And St. Margaret is a large institution—the sort of place that

sues and gets sued often. A stay is less burdensome on it than it would be on a natural person for

whom such a lawsuit would likely be a novel and more distressing, not to mention expensive,

3
experience. A stay costs St. Margaret money too, of course, but this cost is proportionably smaller. 

In light of all this, the Court GRANTS in part the Motion to Stay Discovery or for

Protective Order [DE 25] insofar as it seeks to stay this case. The Court DENIES it in part as moot

insofar as it seeks a protective order. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to STAY this case.

The Court SETS this matter for a telephonic status hearing on May 14, 2015, at 9:15am (CST). The

Court DENIES without prejudice the Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Deposition of

Plaintiff [DE 21]. Should Plaintiff fail to cooperate in discovery once the stay is lifted, St. Margaret

(or any other party) may, of course, make appropriate motions.

SO ORDERED this 25th day of November, 2014.

s/ Paul R. Cherry 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

cc: All counsel of record 

4