Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Sheikh

Background

The order addressed two matters in a civil case involving Cisco Systems, Inc., Zahid Hassan Sheikh, and others, along with third-party claims brought by Advanced Digital Solutions International, Inc. against Rahi Systems, Inc. and others. One motion asked the court to stay, or pause, the civil proceedings until expiration of the statute of limitations. The court also reviewed prefiling letters concerning an anticipated motion for summary judgment by third-party defendants.

Motion to Stay

The court applied the factors described by the Ninth Circuit in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision for deciding whether to pause civil proceedings while criminal proceedings are pending or possible. Those factors include the plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding promptly, the burden on defendants, the court’s management of its cases, the interests of nonparties, the public interest, and the extent to which a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.

The court found insufficient justification for a stay and denied the motion. It emphasized the need to resolve cases promptly because memories can fade, discovery had closed except for a narrowly defined exception, and the benefit of a stay was not comparable to circumstances in which parallel litigation has a present and identifiable impact. The court also noted that individuals with concerns had exercised their Fifth Amendment rights, meaning the case would proceed without their testimony. It further stated that the court and public benefit from resolving civil matters, and that stays of undefined length are disfavored.

Summary-Judgment Prefiling Conference

After reviewing the parties’ prefiling letters, the court ruled that no prefiling conference was required for third-party defendants’ anticipated summary-judgment motion. The parties were therefore relieved in part from the summary-judgment prefiling conference requirement. Any other party seeking to file a summary-judgment motion had to first request permission through a prefiling letter.

The court reminded the parties to file separate statements of fact in the format required by paragraph 9(c) of its Standing Order. It also stated that summary judgment should be used prudently when there are no disputed material facts, and that where triable factual disputes exist, summary judgment would be denied through a brief order. The order terminated Docket Number 108. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.