Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ________________________________________ JOHN DOE 6 Plaintiff, v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE SECOND MILE, and GERALD SANDUSKY

Defendants. ________________________________________

: : : : : Civil Action No. 13-0336 : : : : : : : :

MOTION TO STAY OF DEFENDANTS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE SECOND MILE For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Law filed concurrently with this Motion, Defendants The Pennsylvania State University and The Second Mile1 hereby move this Court to stay proceedings in this action until the parallel criminal cases proceeding against Defendants Graham Spanier, Timothy Curley, and Gary Schultz and the parallel criminal investigations have concluded. Respectfully submitted,

Date: February 15, 2013

/s James A. Keller James A. Keller (Atty. I.D. No. 78955) Joseph F. ODea (Atty. I.D. No. 48370) Gregory G. Schwab (Atty. I.D. No. 93310) Saul Ewing LLP

Defendant Gerald Sandusky is incarcerated and apparently has not been served.

522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8 Filed 02/15/13 Page 2 of 2

Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for The Pennsylvania State University

/s Howard A. Rosenthal (with permission) Howard A. Rosenthal, Esquire Archer & Greiner, P.C. One Liberty Place, 32nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for The Second Mile

1
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-1 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ________________________________________ JOHN DOE 6 Plaintiff, v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE SECOND MILE, and GERALD SANDUSKY

Defendants. ________________________________________

: : : : : Civil Action No. 13-0336 : : : : : : : :

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY OF DEFENDANTS THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE SECOND MILE Defendants The Pennsylvania State University (the University) and The Second Mile (together, the Moving Parties),2 hereby move this court for relief staying this civil action. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This case was commenced on or about January 22, 2013. There are parallel and wellpublicized investigations and criminal proceedings pending against current or former University employees Graham Spanier, Timothy Curley and Gary Schultz relating to certain alleged conduct by Gerald Sandusky. See Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Nos. MJ-12303CR-419-2012, CP-22-MD-1374-2011 and CP-22-MD-1375-2011. The alleged conduct of

Messrs. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz regarding Mr. Sandusky, individually and in conjunction

The remaining defendant, Gerald Sandusky, is incarcerated and does not appear to have been served to date.

2
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-1 Filed 02/15/13 Page 2 of 6

with the University and/or The Second Mile, is also the subject of this civil action. See, e.g. Complaint, Docket No. 01, at 58-74, 86. The trial of Messrs. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz is anticipated to occur in 2014. Moreover, it has been well-publicized that the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General is in the midst of an ongoing and active criminal investigation relating to Mr. Sanduskys conduct. The United States Attorneys Office also has been conducting an investigation. The Moving Parties request that this civil action be stayed in light of the parallel criminal proceedings and investigation that relate to the Moving Parties and alleged conduct involving the University and Second Mile. The Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County has already stayed every other pending action that asserts civil claims relating to Gerald Sanduskys alleged conduct, even over the plaintiffs objections. Just this week, Judge Caldwell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered a stay in Doe v. The Pennsylvania State
University et al., No. 12-2068 (M.D.Pa.). True and correct copies of the orders staying Doe A v. The

Pennsylvania State University et al., Doe B v. The Pennsylvania State University et al., Doe C v. The Pennsylvania State University et al., C. Miller v. The Pennsylvania State University et al., and Doe v. The Pennsylvania State University et al. are attached hereto as Exhibits A-E, respectively. LEGAL STANDARD When related civil and criminal actions are pending, the criminal action should ordinarily be tried first to alleviate any Fifth Amendment problems in the civil proceeding. In Re

Residential Doors Antitrust Litig., 900 F. Supp. 749, 756 (E.D. Pa. 1995). Whether to stay proceedings in light of parallel pending criminal proceedings is soundly within the discretion of the trial court. See Walsh Secs., Inc. v. Cristo Prop. Mgmt., LTD., 7 F. Supp. 2d 523, 526 (D.N.J.

3
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-1 Filed 02/15/13 Page 3 of 6

1998) (citing United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970)). [T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with the economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Texaco, Inc. v. Borda, 383 F.2d 607, 608 (3d Cir. 1967). In In re Adelphia Communications Securities Litigation, No. 02-1781, 2003 WL 22358819 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2003), this Court set forth six factors a court should consider in deciding whether to stay a civil case pending the resolution of a related criminal case: The factors a court must consider in determining whether to grant a stay include: 1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal and civil cases overlap; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have 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 burden on the defendants; 5) the interest of the court; and 6) the public interest. Id. at *3 (citing Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 52627) (additional citations omitted); accord Advanced Power Sys., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Sys., Inc., 148 F.R.D. 138, 140 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (ordering stay of discovery until defendant completed probation so that he could testify freely in civil case without risking incriminating himself); Kaiser v. Stewart, No. 96-6643, 1997 WL 66186, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 1997) (staying civil case where one defendant out of several was also subject to criminal indictment alleging facts similar to civil claims). The Middle District of Pennsylvania in the related Doe case recently applied this same test to similar allegations and concluded that a stay should be imposed. See Exhibit E. ARGUMENT 1. The Issues In The Civil And Criminal Cases Completely Overlap The similarity of issues has been termed the most important threshold issue in determining whether or not to grant a stay. Adelphia, 2003 WL 22358819, at *3 (citations

4
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-1 Filed 02/15/13 Page 4 of 6

omitted).

The allegations in Plaintiffs Complaint mirror the criminal allegations pending

against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz, and relate to the alleged conduct of Gerald Sandusky and the knowledge of the University and The Second Mile regarding same. Because the issues in this civil action are nearly identical to those in the pending parallel criminal actions and criminal investigation, and they arise from the same alleged course of conduct, a stay is appropriate. See Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527. 2. Spanier, Curley and Schultz Have Been Indicted Four individuals discussed extensively in Plaintiffs civil ComplaintMessrs. Sandusky, Spanier, Curley, and Schultzhave been indicted. Mr. Sandusky has been convicted. Messrs. Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are still awaiting trial on issues arising from the alleged conduct of Mr. Sandusky, and their own alleged responses thereto, which are matters specifically at issue in Plaintiff's civil action. (See Complaint at 58-74, 86). While these individuals are not named defendants in this action, Plaintiffs Complaint makes it clear that they will be critical witnesses to the litigation. This factor also weighs in favor of a stay. See Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527-28. 3. Plaintiff Would Not Suffer Prejudice As A Result Of A Stay Plaintiff would suffer little to no prejudice should this Court grant a stay. While a stay would by definition result in some delay, such delay alone would not result in any prejudice to Plaintiffs claims. In fact, Plaintiff should take a keen interest in awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings, as the resolution of some factual issues in those proceedings may affect this civil action. See Shrey v. Kontz, No. 10-1420, 2011 WL 94416, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2011) (this is not a case where plaintiff has significant interests outstanding that need an immediate resolution, this is an instance where the court could stay the proceedings with little prejudice to plaintiff.); accord Kaiser, 1997 WL 66186, at *4 (While a civil litigant with a

5
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-1 Filed 02/15/13 Page 5 of 6

private dispute has an interest in the prompt disposition of his or her claims, the public has a greater interest in enforcement of the criminal law.) (citing Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962)). This factor also weighs in favor of a stay. See Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 528. 4. Absent A Stay, The Burden On The Defendants Would Be Great As one Court has held, [t]he strongest case for a stay of discovery in [a] civil case occurs during a criminal prosecution after an indictment is returned. Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527. The Moving Parties risk real prejudice if this action moves forward while parallel criminal proceedings are active. Plaintiff is suing the University in connection with allegations against current or former employees Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Schultz; Plaintiff is suing the Second Mile in connection with allegations against Sandusky. Those same individuals are criminal defendants, with Spanier, Curley, and Schultz awaiting trial and subject to an ongoing criminal investigation. It would be highly prejudicial to force the Moving Parties to proceed with litigation, particularly through pleadings and discovery, while Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schultz are subject to parallel criminal proceedings and/or ongoing investigations, and may be unwilling or unable to participate in their civil suit. This factor also weighs in favor of a stay. 5. The Interests Of The Court And The Public Weigh In Favor Of A Stay The interests of both the Court and the public are served by granting a stay. The public interest is currently focused on the criminal proceedings, and those proceedings are moving toward trial. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania have uniformly agreed. See Exhibits A-E. Finally, some of the issues in this Civil Action may be conclusively resolved by the criminal trials. Permitting those proceedings to conclude before moving forward in this action will conserve valuable judicial resources and provide for a more efficient resolution process.

6
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-1 Filed 02/15/13 Page 6 of 6

This factor weighs in favor of a stay. See Walsh, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 528-29; Shrey, 2011 WL 94416, at *2. * * *

Because each of the above-listed factors weighs in favor of a stay, the Moving Parties respectfully urge the Court to stay this matter.

CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Moving Parties respectfully request that this Court enter a stay in this action. Respectfully submitted,

Date: February 15, 2013

/s James A. Keller James A. Keller (Atty. I.D. No. 78955) Joseph F. ODea (Atty. I.D. No. 48370) Gregory G. Schwab (Atty. I.D. No. 93310) Saul Ewing LLP Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Counsel for The Pennsylvania State University

/s Howard A. Rosenthal (with permission) Howard A. Rosenthal, Esquire Archer & Greiner, P.C. One Liberty Place, 32nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for The Second Mile

7
522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 15

EXHIBIT A

522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 2 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-VVWC Document 24-1 Filed 12/21/12 Page 7 of 13

JOHN DOE A Plaintiff,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION NO, 111102968

V.

THE SECOND MILE and GERALD SANDUSKY and THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Defendants.
ORDER

AND NOW, this

day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Unopposed

Joint Motion For Extraordinary Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) The Motion is GRANTED; (2) CUTSPirrtraCtltererever,
112%
km('

(3)

This Civil Action is

/(1,444'41 in light of the parallel criminal

proceedings; and (4) Any party is permitted to move this Court for a subsequent order lifting the stay,

provided that each other party has thirty (30) days to respond. BY THE COURT:

Doe A Vs The Second NW-ORDER

119./ 03/11/2012

11111\1111311111\11All 11110296800034

Case ID: 111102968 Control No.: 12031860

COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) J. DIROSA 03/27/2012

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 3 of 15

EXHIBIT B

522.5 02/15/2013

 Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 4 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-VVWC Document 24-1 Filed 12/21/12 Page 9 of 13

JOHN DOE B

: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

Plaintiff,
JUNE TERM, 2012

V. : CASE No. 03727 THE SECOND MILE; GERALD SANDUSKY; and THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Defendant.
OCT 1 8 2012 ORDER

: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DOCKETED

F. CLARK DAYFORWARD
,

AND NOW, this

tlay of 04*--"

2012, upon consideration of the

Unopposed Joint Motion For Extraordinary Relief of All Represented Parties, it is hereby
ORDERED that:

(1) (2)

The Motion is GRANTED; By Agreement of the Parties, this Civil Action shall be removed from the

Expedited Track, and placed onto the Complex Track; however, (3) This Civil Action is immediately STAYED in light of the parallel criminal

proceedings; except that (4) Should stay be lifted in any of Doe A v. The Pennsylvania State University et al.,

Doe C v. The Pennsylvania State University et al., or C. Miller v. The Pennsylvania State University et al. for reasons that also apply to this Civil Action, the stay in this case shall be

lifted as well.. (5) The Court shall revisit this stay after the criminal proceedings have concluded.
BY THE COURT:,
Doe B Vs The Second Mil-ORDER

111111111 111111 ,2 2.101)111 1111111

329.1

COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) F. BROWN-CLARK 10/18/2012

Case ID: 120603727 Control No.: 12101544

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 5 of 15

EXHIBIT C

522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 6 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-WWC Document 24-1 Filed 12/21/12 Page 11 of 13

JOHN DOE C

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 120704291

V.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Defendants.

ORDER AND NOW, this

DOCKETED
SEP 't 8 Z012.
F. CLARK DAY FORWARD

AO

day of

, 2012, upon consideration of the

Unopposed Joint Motion For Extraordinary Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) (2) The Motion is GRANTED; By Agreement of the Parties, this Civil Action shall be removed from the

Expedited Track, and placed onto the Complex Track; however, (3) This Civil Action is immediately STAYED in light of the parallel criminal

proceedings; and (4) The Court shall revisit this stay after the criminal proceedings have concluded.

BY THE COURT:

'\

\AAJLeakilk+
Doe C Vs The Pennsylvan-ORDER

111111111,11,1111,111, 1!16111 I III

COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa,R.C.P. 236(b) F. BROWN-CLARK 09/28/2012

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 7 of 15

EXHIBIT D

522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 8 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-VVINC Document 24-1 Filed 12/21/12 Page 13 of 13

C. MILLER Plaintiff,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY CIVIL ACTION V. TRIAL DIVISION

THE SECOND MILE, GERALD SANDUSKY, AND THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Defendants.
ORDER

DECEMBER TERM, 2011 CASE NO. 02933

AND NOW, this st-,

(ri

day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Unopposed

Joint Motion For Extraordinary Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) (2) The Motion is GRANTED; This Civil Action shall be removed from the Expedited Track, and placed onto the

Complex Track; however, (3) This Civil Action is immediately STAYED in light of the parallel criminal

proceedings; and
ex.<44.4.44.44-6-",04"--K46.444,

(4)

The Court shall revisit this stay)after thcriminal pffeee,dings af6 completed,

vpoli nertl'o n F amy

Miller Vs The Second Mi-ORDER

BY THE COURT:

1 1 111111 1 11 1111 1001 111 11 111

eele drpeefo--- , J.

COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) N. MONTE 133/3012012

Case ID: 11120293 C'nntrn1 Nn I I (1

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 9 of 15

EXHIBIT E

522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 10 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-WVVC Document 50 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN DOE, Plaintiff vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants : CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2068

MEMORANDUM
I.

Introduction

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant action, alleging that Defendants, Pennsylvania State University ("PSU"), Second Mile, Edgewater Psychiatric Center, Gerald Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Timothy Curley, Gary Schultz, Wendell Courtney, and The Law Firm of McQuaide Blasko, violated his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He also brings state law claims of premises liability, negligence, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual assault. Presently before the court is PSU's motion to stay the proceedings until the pending criminal actions against Defendants Spanier, Curley, and Schultz have concluded. The motion is concurred in by Defendants Second Mile, Curley, Spanier, and Courtney. Defendant Edgewater Psychiatric Clinic filed a brief in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 11 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-WWC Document 50 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 6

did not file a response to the motion within the required time, and thus he is deemed not to oppose the motion. See L.R. 7.6.
Discussion

"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254, 57 S. Ct. 153,81 L. Ed. 153 (1936). "How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance." Id. In deciding whether to stay a civil case pending the resolution of a related criminal case, courts consider many factors, including: (1) the extent to which the issues in the civil and criminal cases overlap; (2) the status of the criminal proceedings, including whether any defendants have been indicted; (3) the plaintiffs interests in expeditious civil proceedings weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the court; and (6) the public interest. In re Adelphia Communs. Secs. Litig., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9736, 7-8, 2003 WL 22348819 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2003) (Hutton, J.) (citing Walsh Securities, Inc. v. Cristo Prop. Maqmt., Ltd., 7 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D.N.J. 1998).
A. The Extent to Which the Issues in the Civil and Criminal Cases Overlap

This factor is the most important threshold issue in determining whether to grant defendant's motion. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beckham-Easley, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17896, *4,2002 WL 31111766 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2002) (Hutton, J.).
2

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 12 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-VVWC Document 50 Filed 02/14/13 Page 3 of 6

The moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff's complaint mirrors the criminal allegations pending against Defendants Spanier, Curley, and Schultz. We agree and find that this factor weighs in favor of a stay.' B. The Status of the Criminal Proceedings Defendants Spanier, Curley, and Schultz have been indicted and are awaiting trial, which is expected to begin in 2014. "The strongest case for a stay of discovery in the civil case occurs during a criminal prosecution after an indictment is returned." Walsh Securities, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 527. After indictment, the potential for self-incrimination is high, and the burden of delay is lessened as a result of the Speedy Trial Act. See State Farm, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17896, *4, 2002 WL 31111766. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of a stay. C. Edgewater's Interest in Expeditious Civil Proceedings Weighed Against the Prejudice Caused by the Delay Edgewater argues that the allegations against it are severely damaging to its reputation, and a stay would prevent it from pursuing a prompt dismissal of the case.2 1 Plaintiff alleges that "The defendants knew that Sandusky (a defendant here also) was molesting young boys and they ratified his misconduct by supporting him and giving him continuing access for years to PSU and Second Mile facilities and programs." (Doc. 1, 52). Plaintiff brings claims for violation of his due process, First Amendment, and Fourth Amendment rights as well as state law claims of premises liability, negligence, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual assault. The criminal charges against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz include perjury, endangering the welfare of children, obstruction, conspiracy, and failure to properly report suspected child abuse.

In support of its argument, Edgewater makes a passing reference to a single case involving the denial of a motion to stay proceedings, McQueary v. The
3

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 13 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-VVWC Document 50 Filed 02/14/13 Page 4 of 6

However, due to the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, this burden is decreased. Id. As a result, we find that this factor weighs only slightly against a stay.
D. The Burden on the Defendants in Both Criminal and Civil Actions

If the present proceedings go forward, Defendants Spanier, Curley, and Schultz risk self-incrimination. Id. These Defendants may be forced to choose between invoking their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, allowing the court or jury to draw adverse inferences, or exposing themselves to criminal liability. See Kaiser v. Stewart, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1377, *9-10, 1997 WL 66186, *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 6, 1997) (Bartle, J.). Because we find this burden to be significant, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
E. The Interests of the Court

The court has a strong interest in case management and judicial efficiency. Ty the indicted defendants assert [their Fifth Amendment] privilege throughout the litigation, then it will be difficult or impossible to fairly apportion liability because of the differing factual record among the defendants." In re Adelphia, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Pennsylvania State University, Civ. No. 2012-1804 (December 19, 2012 Ct. Cm. Pleas Centre County). There, PSU sought to stay a civil suit against it until the criminal proceedings against Spanier, Schultz, and Curley were resolved. The court noted that Spanier, Schultz, and Curley were not defendants in the civil action, and there were not issues common to both the civil and criminal actions. The court also stressed that there were no legitimate self-incrimination concerns, and a criminal conviction would not lessen the burden of discovery on the civil plaintiffs. The court's concerns in McQueary are inapplicable to the present case. Here, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley have been named as Defendants. The criminal and civil proceedings largely overlap. There are significant self-incrimination concerns. Under these circumstances, we do not find Edgewater's argument persuasive.
4

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 14 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-VVWC Document 50 Filed 02/14/13 Page 5 of 6

9736, 7-8, 2003 WL 22348819, *5. Additionally, criminal convictions may encourage settlement of civil lawsuits, eliminating the necessity of litigating certain issues. Id. We find that this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
F. The interests of the Public

"While a civil litigant with a private dispute has an interest in the prompt disposition of his or her claims, the public has a greater interest in enforcement of the criminal law." Kaiser, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1377, *12, 1997 WL 66186, *4. We do not find that the public interest is harmed by a stay, and thus this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
Conclusion

Having weighed the above factors, we will grant PSU's motion for a stay. We will issue an appropriate order.

/s/William W. Caldwell William W. Caldwell

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-2 Filed 02/15/13 Page 15 of 15

Case 4:12-cv-02068-W\A/C Document 50 Filed 02/14/13 Page 6 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN DOE, Plaintiff
VS.

: CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2068

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants

ORDER AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2013, upon consideration of Pennsylvania State University's motion to stay (doc. 24), and Edgewater Psychiatric Center's response thereto, and pursuant to the accompanying memorandum, it is ordered that said motion is GRANTED.

/s/William W. Caldwell William W. Caldwell United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-3 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ________________________________________ JOHN DOE 6 Plaintiff, v. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE SECOND MILE, and GERALD SANDUSKY

Defendants. ________________________________________

: : : : : Civil Action No. 13-0336 : : : : : : : :

ORDER AND NOW, this _______ day of ________________, 2013, upon consideration of the Motion to Stay of Defendants The Pennsylvania State University and The Second Mile, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) (2) The Motion is GRANTED; This Civil Action is immediately STAYED in light of the parallel criminal

proceedings and investigation; (3) The Court shall revisit this stay after the criminal proceedings and investigation

have concluded. BY THE COURT: ______________________________ Anita B. Brody, J.

522.5 02/15/2013

Case 2:13-cv-00336-AB Document 8-4 Filed 02/15/13 Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James A. Keller, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Stay of Defendants The Pennsylvania State University and The Second Mile and brief in support was filed via the ECF filing system which constitutes valid service upon the following registered users:

Hal Kleinman, Esquire Janet Jenner & Suggs LLC 1829 Reistertown Rd Ste 320 Baltimore, MD 21208 Counsel for Plaintiff Howard A. Rosenthal, Esquire Archer & Greiner, P.C. One Liberty Place, 32nd Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for The Second Mile

Date: February 15, 2013

/s James A. Keller James A. Keller

8
522.5 02/15/2013