United States District Court, D. Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge
the Court is Defendant Insys Therapeutics Incorporated's
(“Insys”) motion to stay. (Doc. 48.) The motion
is fully briefed. (Docs. 53, 56.) For reasons stated below,
the motion is denied.
district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings in
its own court.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398
F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 255 (1936)). The Court must weigh
competing interests affected by a grant or denial of a stay,
including (1) the possible damage caused by a stay, (2) the
hardship to the parties if the suit is allowed to go forward,
and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of
the simplifying or complicating of issues from a
stay. Id. at 1110 (citing CMAX,
Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The
Court may also consider whether it is “efficient for
its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to
enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”
Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal. Ltd., 593 F.2d
857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979).
requests to stay this matter pending resolution of criminal
proceedings involving its former officers, directors, and
agents. Insys contends that a stay is needed because
otherwise (1) its ability to conduct discovery will be
circumscribed by former employees asserting their Fifth
Amendment privileges; (2) it will have to manage multiple
civil cases and respond to subpoenas in criminal cases all at
the same time; and (3) it may be deprived of additional
defenses. (Doc. 48 at 7-8.) Insys request only seeks a stay
pending resolution of the criminal trial at the district
court. (Id. at 1.)
prejudice Insys alleges it will suffer absent a stay likely
will not be remedied by a stay lasting only through the
district court's criminal trial because privilege issues
frequently persist until a conviction and (if pursued) the
resolution of an appeal. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp. v.
Brown, 857 F.Supp. 1384, 1392 (C.D. Cal. 1994).
“The prospect that the criminal trial will eliminate
the obstacle of obtaining [witnesses'] testimony at the
civil trial is likely to be illusory.” Id.
Instead, a stay capable of providing Insys with the relief it
requests-being able to depose former employees currently
under criminal indictment-would need to remain in place until
resolution of any appeals, an indeterminate period in the
future. As such, the Court finds Insys showing inadequate to
grant such a request. The Court also finds Insys' alleged
prejudice speculative given its failure to demonstrate what
information it expects to illicit from its former employees
that is not already in its control in the form of internal
documents and communications.
does the Court find any undue burden on Insys in dividing its
attention between this action and others. Insys has not been
indicted or charged with a crime. (Doc. 53 at 4.) Instead,
its only responsibility with respect to the criminal trials
of its former officers and directors is to respond to
government subpoenas, much of which has already been
deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court also considers
the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs from a delay. See
Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1109. Where, as here, the moving
party requests a stay for an “indeterminate
period” it is more likely to cause Plaintiffs
prejudice. See Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 857
F.Supp. at 1391. For instance, such a delay could result in
loss of witnesses or the veracity of witness testimony, the
inability to recover monetary damages due to the depletion of
Insys' funds, and the costs associated with storing
evidence. The Court also finds that a stay is neither in the
orderly course of justice nor in the interest of judicial
considering the alleged hardships, the potential length of
the stay, and concerns of judicial economy and the orderly
course of justice, the Court concludes that these factors
weigh against granting a stay. The Court therefore will
exercise its discretion and deny Insys' motion.
IS ORDERED that Insys motion to stay this action
(Doc. 48) is DENIED.
 Plaintiffs request for oral argument
is denied because the issues are adequately briefed and oral
argument will not aid the Court's resolution of the
motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); LRCiv.
 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that
when determining whether a stay should issue in a civil case
with a parallel criminal proceeding courts should apply a
different factor-analysis. See Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins.
Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 1989).
Because Insys is not a defendant in a parallel criminal
proceeding, the Court will apply the standard three-factor
analysis used to determine whether a stay should issue. (Doc.
53 at 4 (“Here, of course, there ...