john doe 6 v. the pennsylvania state university et al

522.5 02/15/2013

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. O’Dea (Atty. I.D. No. 48370)

Gregory G. Schwab (Atty. I.D. No. 93310)

Saul Ewing LLP

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

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

1 522.5 02/15/2013

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


Counsel for The Second Mile

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

2 522.5 02/15/2013



________________________________________

JOHN DOE 6

Plaintiff,

v.



GERALD SANDUSKY

Defendants.

________________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:


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 well-

publicized 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-12303-

CR-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

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

date.

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

3 522.5 02/15/2013

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. Sandusky’s conduct. The

United States Attorney’s 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 Sandusky’s 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.


4 522.5 02/15/2013

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 526–27) (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


5 522.5 02/15/2013

omitted). The allegations in Plaintiff’s 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 Plaintiff’s civil Complaint—Messrs. Sandusky,

Spanier, Curley, and Schultz—have 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, Plaintiff’s 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

Plaintiff’s 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


6 522.5 02/15/2013

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.


7 522.5 02/15/2013

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,


James A. Keller (Atty. I.D. No. 78955)

Joseph F. O’Dea (Atty. I.D. No. 48370)

Gregory G. Schwab (Atty. I.D. No. 93310)

Saul Ewing LLP

Centre Square West

1500 Market Street, 38th

Floor


Counsel for The Pennsylvania State University

/s Howard A. Rosenthal (with permission)



One Liberty Place, 32nd Floor

1650 Market Street




EXHIBIT A

522.5 02/15/2013


112% /(1,444'41in light of the parallel criminal

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

JOHN DOE A COURT OF COMMON PLEASPHILADELPHIA COUNTY

Plaintiff,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)

CUTSPirrtraCtl•tererever,

(3) This Civil Action is

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:

km('

Doe A Vs The Second NW-ORDER

11111\1111311111\11All11110296800034

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

119./ 03/11/2012

Case ID: 111102968

Control No.: 12031860


EXHIBIT B

522.5 02/15/2013


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

JOHN DOE B ::

Plaintiff,

V.:

THE SECOND MILE;GERALD SANDUSKY; and :THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Defendant.

COURT OF COMMON PLEASPHILADELPHIA COUNTY

JUNE TERM, 2012

CASE No. 03727

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DOCKETED

OCT 1 8 2012

F. CLARK

ORDER 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:


(2) 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

111111111,2 111111 11111112.101)111 329.1

Case ID: 120603727

Control No.: 12101544COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) F. BROWN-CLARK 10/18/2012


EXHIBIT C

522.5 02/15/2013


DOCKETED

SEP 't 8 Z012.

F. CLARKDAY FORWARD

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Defendants.

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

JOHN DOE C COURT OF COMMON PLEASPHILADELPHIA COUNTY

Plaintiff,CIVIL ACTION NO. 120704291

V.

ORDER

AND NOW, this AO day of , 2012, upon consideration of the

Unopposed Joint Motion For Extraordinary Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that:


(2) By Agreement of the Parties, this Civil Action shall be removed from the

Expedited Track, and placed onto the Complex Track; however,


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


EXHIBIT D

522.5 02/15/2013


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

C. MILLER

Plaintiff,

V.

THE SECOND MILE, GERALD SANDUSKY,AND THE PENNSYLVANIA STATEUNIVERSITY

Defendants.

COURT OF COMMON PLEASOF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

CIVIL ACTION

TRIAL DIVISION

DECEMBER TERM, 2011

CASE NO. 02933

ORDER

(riAND NOW, this st-, day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Unopposed

Joint Motion For Extraordinary Relief, it is hereby ORDERED that:


(2) This Civil Action shall be removed from the Expedited Track, and placed onto the

Complex Track; however,


proceedings; andex.<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:

11 1 11111111 11 11 1111 1001 111 11 e•eledrpeefo--- , J.

Case ID: 11120293

C'nntrn1 Nn I I (1COPIES SENT PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b) N. MONTE 133/3012012


EXHIBIT E

522.5 02/15/2013


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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEMIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE,Plaintiff

vs. : CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2068

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATEUNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants

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 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 CasesOverlap

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 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 Againstthe 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 herealso) was molesting young boys and they ratified his misconduct by supporting himand giving him continuing access for years to PSU and Second Mile facilities andprograms." (Doc. 1, I 52). Plaintiff brings claims for violation of his due process, FirstAmendment, and Fourth Amendment rights as well as state law claims of premisesliability, negligence, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexualassault. The criminal charges against Spanier, Curley, and Schultz include perjury,endangering the welfare of children, obstruction, conspiracy, and failure to properlyreport suspected child abuse.

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

3



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. PleasCentre County). There, PSU sought to stay a civil suit against it until the criminalproceedings against Spanier, Schultz, and Curley were resolved. The court noted thatSpanier, Schultz, and Curley were not defendants in the civil action, and there werenot issues common to both the civil and criminal actions. The court also stressed thatthere were no legitimate self-incrimination concerns, and a criminal conviction wouldnot 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 civilproceedings largely overlap. There are significant self-incrimination concerns. Underthese circumstances, we do not find Edgewater's argument persuasive.

4



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. CaldwellUnited States District Judge

5


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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THEMIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE,Plaintiff

VS. : CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2068

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATEUNIVERSITY, 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. CaldwellUnited States District Judge

6


522.5 02/15/2013



________________________________________

JOHN DOE 6

Plaintiff,

v.



GERALD SANDUSKY

Defendants.

________________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:


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:



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.


8 522.5 02/15/2013

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



One Liberty Place, 32nd

Floor

1650 Market Street




James A. Keller


john doe 6 v. the pennsylvania state university et al

Documents