Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-11875
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals, Judge Freeman denied a 90-day discovery stay, lifted the temporary deposition stay, and ordered depositions scheduled.
The ruling directly affected Susanne Schafmeister, whose requested stay was denied, and NYU Langone Hospitals and John Kennedy, whose discovery could proceed. The parties were required to confer and propose a schedule for remaining discovery.
What happened
In Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals, Susanne Schafmeister asked the court to pause her deposition or all discovery for 90 days because criminal charges were pending against her. The civil case includes her claims of workplace discrimination, defamation, and retaliation, as well as counterclaims related to alleged misuse of funds.
The court recognized that the criminal investigation and the counterclaims appeared to involve substantially overlapping facts. But it found that no indictment had been returned, Schafmeister waited until after participating in discovery to request the stay, and further delay would harm the parties’ and court’s interest in resolving the case efficiently.
Judge Freeman denied Schafmeister’s motion for a stay and lifted the temporary stay of depositions. The parties were ordered to propose a schedule for completing remaining fact depositions and any expert discovery; the opinion also said the denial did not prevent Schafmeister from seeking different protective relief after conferring with the defendants.
The detailed version
- Schafmeister v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:19-cv-11875
- Denise Cote
- May 27, 2021
Background
Susanne Schafmeister sued NYU Langone Hospitals and John Kennedy, M.D., alleging discriminatory, defamatory, and retaliatory workplace conduct. Kennedy asserted defenses and counterclaims concerning Schafmeister’s alleged embezzlement, theft, and unauthorized use of funds. The opinion states that Schafmeister had been charged with second-degree grand larceny based on Kennedy’s statements to police.
Schafmeister moved for a 90-day stay of her deposition or, alternatively, a 90-day stay of all discovery. She argued that the criminal charges and Kennedy’s counterclaims involved many of the same allegations and that being required to testify could undermine her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court temporarily stayed all depositions while considering the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that a stay of civil proceedings because of related criminal proceedings is discretionary, not automatically required by the Constitution. Courts must conduct a fact-specific review of competing interests, including the overlap between the civil and criminal matters; the status of the criminal case; the parties’ interests and potential prejudice from delay; the burden on the person requesting the stay; judicial efficiency; and the public interest. The party seeking the stay bears the burden of showing that it is necessary.
The court also noted that special concerns arise when a civil plaintiff seeks the stay. In that situation, the court considers whether the plaintiff is trying to use the self-incrimination privilege both to advance her own claims and to avoid responding to the defendants’ discovery.
Analysis
The court found that the overlap between the criminal investigation and Kennedy’s defenses and counterclaims favored a stay. However, the status of the criminal case weighed against one because, as far as the court knew, no indictment had been returned. The court stated that a criminal complaint alone did not require a civil stay, and that a stay could be denied even after an indictment in appropriate circumstances.
The court also relied on the timing of Schafmeister’s request. She had started the civil case after being charged, knew by April 2020 that Kennedy’s defenses and counterclaims concerned the same facts, and participated in discovery for more than eight months before seeking to avoid her deposition. The court concluded that the parties’ competing interests weighed substantially against a stay.
Finally, the court concluded that judicial efficiency and the public interest in resolving cases promptly weighed against additional delay. The temporary stay had already postponed the deposition by approximately the period Schafmeister originally requested, and the court found that nearly five months of additional delay was not warranted.
Ruling
The court denied Schafmeister’s motion for a stay and lifted the temporary stay of depositions. The parties were directed to submit, by June 8, 2021, a joint proposed schedule for remaining fact depositions and any expert discovery. The court stated that the denial of the stay was without prejudice to Schafmeister seeking alternative relief, such as a protective order concerning the confidentiality of her deposition, after a good-faith conference with the defendants. Judge Debra Freeman also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion on the docket.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.