“[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.”
How later courts described this case
- “[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.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MAKENZEE MASON,
Case No. 2:22-cv-3668
Plaintiff,
v. Judge Graham
BLOOM-CARROLL LOCAL SCHOOL Magistrate Judge Deavers
DISTRICT, ET AL.
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Makenzee Mason’s motion to strike Defendant Chad
Little’s motion to stay or, alternatively, motion for reconsideration of this Court’s entry granting a
stay, Doc. 18.
I. Background
Mason alleges that Little engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with her while
she was a minor student and varsity girls basketball player at Bloom-Carroll High School
(“BCHS”) and he the head coach of the BCHS varsity girls basketball team. Little is currently
facing criminal charges related to his conduct. On September 20, 2022, Little was charged with
four counts of sexual battery in Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 2022-CR-
00429. A jury trial is currently set in that case for February 7, 2023.
On September 2, 2022, Mason filed the present civil suit against Little, Bloom-Carroll
Local School District, Bloom-Carroll Local School District Board of Education, the Ohio
Department of Education, and four BCHS administrators. The complaint contains the following
claims: Count I: violation of Title IX against all defendants; Count II: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the four administrators and Little; Count III: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Bloom-Carroll Local
School District and Board; Count IV: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Ohio Department of Education;
Count V: civil assault and battery against Little; Count VI: damages for criminal act against Little;
Count VII: negligence against all defendants; Count VIII: intentional infliction of emotional
distress against all defendants but for the Ohio Department of Education; Count IX: negligent
infliction of emotional distress against all defendants but for the Ohio Department of Education;
and Count X: wanton or reckless conduct against the four administrators and Little.
On December 9, 2022, Little moved to “stay all proceedings pending the resolution of the
directly-related criminal matter pending in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas captioned
State of Ohio v. Chad Little, 2022 CR 00492.”1 Doc. 16 at 1. On December 12, 2022, the Court
granted Little’s motion for good cause shown and stayed the proceedings. Doc. 17.
On December 27, 2023, Mason filed a motion to strike Little’s motion to stay or,
alternatively, to reconsider the grant of stay. Doc. 18. She argues Little could not move for a stay
prior to filing a responsive pleading, which he had not. Alternatively, she requests the Court
reconsider the stay in light of the arguments presented in her brief. She argues that a stay of the
entire case is inappropriate. Little responded to Mason’s motion conceding that a stay of the entire
case is not necessary. He now requests only a stay of discovery against him until the related
criminal matter is resolved. Doc. 20-1 at 2 (“Defendant has no objection to this Court lifting a stay
of the entire proceeding, as long as discovery of this Defendant is not permitted until the criminal
matter pending in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas . . . is completed.”). Mason failed
to file a reply brief.
1 The Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas docket reveals that Little’s criminal case is 2022
CR 00429, not 2022 CR 00492.
II. Standard of Review
Mason requests reconsideration of the Court’s order staying the proceedings.
Reconsideration is proper under three circumstances: (1) when there is an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) when new evidence is available; or (3) when reconsideration is required to
correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare
Fund, 89 F. App’x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004).
III. Analysis
As neither party desires a stay of the entire case, the question presently before the Court is
whether discovery over Little should be stayed pending resolution of Little’s criminal case. The
Court will first address whether Little may seek a stay prior to filing a responsive pleading, then
will address the merits of a stay.
A. Ability to Seek a Stay
Mason argues that Little may not seek a stay prior to filing a responsive pleading. Doc. 18
at 5-6. She cites in support a guide produced by this Court titled “Guide for Pro Se Civil Litigants,”
referred to in this Opinion and Order as the “Guide.”2 Doc. 18 at 5. The Guide explains that “[o]nce
the defendant is served, several things may happen: the defendant may file an answer, the
defendant may file a motion, or the defendant may do nothing.” Guide at page 12. The Guide
continues that the types of motions that can be filed are those listed in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12. Id. Mason asserts that because a motion to stay is not a motion under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12, the Guide establishes that it may not be filed prior to a responsive pleading.
Mason is mistaken. The Guide provides “a general overview of civil practice and procedure
2 The Guide is available at https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Pro%20Se%20Man-
ual%20Aug%202019%20version.pdf.
in our Court.” Id. at 3. It is not an exhaustive practice manual. Moreover, Mason cites no supporting
law. And contrary to her position, the Court has found several examples where motions to stay
were permitted prior to a responsive pleading being filed. See, e.g., Slone v. Saul, No. 7:18-CV-
052-CHB, 2019 WL 13212715, at *1 (E.D. Ky. July 29, 2019). This is sensible. The Court
possesses broad authority to stay litigation. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[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.”). There are situations where a stay at the initial stages of litigation is prudent.
Litigants are permitted to request, and the Court is permitted to consider, a stay in such
circumstances.
B. Merits of Stay of Discovery
District courts have “broad discretion in determining whether to stay a civil action while a
criminal action is pending or impending.” F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 627
(6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Chao v. Fleming, 498 F. Supp.2d 1034, 1037 (W.D. Mich. 2007)). In
making this determination, district courts balance six factors:
1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented
in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the defendants have
been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously
weighed against the prejudice to 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.
Id. District courts should also consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights
are implicated.” Id. (quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.
1995). “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the stay to show that there is pressing need for delay,
and that neither the other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order.” Id. (quoting
Ohio Env't Council v. U.S. Dist. Ct., S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977)).
The first factor weighs strongly in favor of a stay. This factor is regarded as “the most
important factor” because ‘[i]f there is no overlap, then there would be no danger of self-
incrimination and no need for a stay.” Chao, 498 F. Supp. 2d at 1039 (quoting Metzler v. Bennett,
No. 97-CV-148 (RSP/GJD), 1998 WL 187454, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 15, 1998)). Here, the extent
of overlap between the civil claims and criminal charges against Little is great. Little faces eight
civil claims in the pending action, all premised on his alleged sexual relationship with Mason.
Little’s criminal charges of sexual battery are premised on the same factual allegation. Therefore,
the extent of overlap weighs in favor of granting a stay of discovery over Little.
The second factor likewise favors a stay of discovery over Little.
A stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to the civil case has already
been indicted for the same conduct for two reasons: first, the likelihood that a
defendant may make incriminating statements is greatest after an indictment has
issued, and second, the prejudice to the plaintiffs in the civil case is reduced since
the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved due to Speedy Trial Act
considerations.
F.T.C., 767 F.3d at 628 (quoting Trs. of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. Transworld
Mechanical, 886 F.Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). Little was indicted on September 29, 2022
and a jury trial is presently scheduled for February 7, 2023. Therefore, a stay of discovery may be
appropriate to prevent forcing Little into situations where he may make incriminating statements.
The third factor weighs against a stay. Mason alleges that Little lured her into an
inappropriate sexual relationship. She is justified in wanting the case to proceed expeditiously.
However, a mere delay in discovery over Little will not significantly prejudice her. She can
continue the proceeding against the other defendants unimpeded. Moreover, the stay of discovery
is for a limited duration. It will end at the conclusion of the criminal case against Little. Yet, the
delay is still notable, especially because the Court cannot say with certainty when Little’s criminal
case will conclude.
The fourth factor weighs in favor of a stay. Defendant would be significantly burdened if
discovery is not stayed. “[R]equring Defendants to choose between asserting their Fifth
Amendment rights (thereby subjecting themselves to the very real possibility of adverse
inferences) and defending themselves in this action imposes a substantial burden upon
Defendants.” Chao, 498 F. Supp.2d at 1039. Little’s burden is especially severe because he is
traversing this civil litigation without the assistance of counsel.
Finally, the fifth and sixth factors favor a stay. Courts have an interest in “docket
management and the expeditious resolution of cases.” Id. at 1040. The public has an interest in an
effective criminal prosecution. United States Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Abdallah, 313 F.R.D. 59, 64
(N.D. Ohio 2016). This interest generally outweighs any existing civil interests. Id. If Little is
required to simultaneously defend both his criminal charges and this case, it may cause delays to
both. He may be required to request otherwise unnecessary continuances in his criminal case and
may request case management deadline extensions here. Further, Little’s criminal proceeding may
render some discovery in this case unnecessary, preserving the resources of both the parties and
this Court.
On balance, the Court finds that a stay of discovery against Little is appropriate. Mason
appears to agree. Doc. 18 at 17 (“Such a limited stay . . . would appropriately balance the
competing interests of the parties in this case, permitting Plaintiff to proceed with discovery of the
numerous other Defendants in this case, while protecting Defendant Little’s rights as a criminal
defendant.”).
IV. Conclusion
Mason’s motion for reconsideration, Doc. 18, is GRANTED IN PART. The Court’s
order granting stay, Doc. 17, is VACATED. Discovery over Little is stayed pending resolution
of Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas case number 2022 CR 00429.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DATE: January 26, 2023