Shaina Kirkland v. Ryan K. Desmond, in his official capacity as District Attorney General for the 5th Judicial District of Tennessee, and Shari Tayloe, East Tennessee Pro Tem Prosecutor

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

SHAINA KIRKLAND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No.: 3:25-cv-471-TAV-DCP ) RYAN K. DESMOND, ) in his official capacity as District Attorney ) General for the 5th Judicial District of ) Tennessee, and ) SHARI TAYLOE, East Tennessee ) Pro Tem Prosecutor, ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to stay [Doc. 15] in which she requests that the Court stay this matter pending the resolution of related state criminal proceedings. Plaintiff states that she is scheduled to stand trial in the underlying criminal case on September 23, 2026, involving the same allegations contained in the complaint, and the outcome of that proceeding may be dispositive of the claims asserted in this case [Id. at 1]. Plaintiff advises that defense counsel does not oppose the requested relief [Id. at 2]. The Court maintains the discretion to stay a civil proceeding pending the outcome of a related criminal action. See F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 627 (6th Cir. 2014). Factors bearing on this determination include: 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. (quoting Chao v. Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1034, 1037 (W.D. Mich. 2007)). Additionally, the Court should consider “the extent to which [a] defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.” See id. (quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995)). Here, plaintiff has demonstrated that the factors warrant the Court staying this case pending resolution of the criminal action. First, the cases arise from the same alleged conduct [Doc. 15, p. 1]. Second, plaintiff has already been indicted in the criminal matter [Id.]. Third, a stay is in plaintiff’s interest because it will allow her to avoid simultaneous litigation of the civil and criminal actions, as well as any Fifth Amendment privilege issues

that may arise during the discovery process in this case [Id. at 1–2]. Further, dismissal of this case could create statute of limitations issues. Fourth, given their lack of opposition to the request, defendants apparently will suffer no substantial prejudice from a stay [Id. at 2–3]. As to the fifth and sixth factors, a stay will promote judicial economy because resolution of the overlapping criminal case could moot or narrow issues raised in this case

[Id. at 2]. In summary, the Court agrees with plaintiff’s arguments and will stay this civil action pending the resolution of the related criminal case. Plaintiff’s motion to stay [Doc. 15] is GRANTED. This case is STAYED pending resolution of the related criminal case. The parties are ORDERED to notify the Court within fourteen (14) days of the resolution

of the criminal case. The parties are further ORDERED to file a joint status report regarding the status of the criminal matter ninety (90) days from the date of this Order, and every ninety (90) days thereafter. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas A. Varlan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE