KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 1:14-cv-00549

Plaintiff KCI USA, Inc. alleges defendants stole KCI wound-care vacuums and marketed them as their own; the court set a Show Cause Hearing for August 16, 2017.
Defendant Ryan H. Tennebar faces parallel criminal proceedings (indicted on at least one charge; potential additional indictment imminent) related to theft and alleged obstruction of justice tied to this civil case.
Tennebar moved to stay the civil proceedings until early November 2017 to protect Fifth Amendment rights and because of the pending criminal matter.
KCI moved for leave to admit declarations in lieu of live testimony and for leave to file a bench brief instanter.
The court considered the traditional stay factors for civil cases pending parallel criminal proceedings and focused on overlap of issues, status of criminal case, competing private interests, and public and judicial interests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay civil proceedings pending related criminal case	Delay prejudices KCI (may impair ability to collect judgment; criminal delays could be indefinite)	Stay required to protect Fifth Amendment rights and because criminal indictment/obstruction charges overlap materially	Court granted stay until early Nov. 2017; Show Cause Hearing rescheduled for Nov. 9, 2017
Whether criminal and civil issues overlap sufficiently to warrant stay	KCI acknowledged factual overlap but urged proceeding	Tennebar argued substantial factual overlap (theft and obstruction) favoring stay	Court found significant overlap and that factor favored stay
Whether court/public interests favor proceeding	KCI preferred prompt resolution to enforce civil remedies	Defendant argued judicial/public resources conserved by staying until criminal resolution	Court found judicial efficiency and public interest favored stay
Whether to allow declarations in lieu of live testimony and file a bench brief	KCI sought permission to use declarations and file brief	Defendants did not successfully oppose these specific requests in a way that prevented relief	Court granted KCI’s motions to admit declarations and to file a bench brief; denied motion to convey as moot

F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611 (6th Cir. 2014) (discussing factors and discretion for stays pending parallel criminal proceedings)
Chao v. Fleming, 498 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (W.D. Mich. 2007) (discussing stay factors and overlapping civil-criminal issues)
Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. AT&T Network Sys., 879 F.2d 824 (6th Cir. 1989) (noting balance of hardships as key consideration for stay)
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989) (addressing extent Fifth Amendment rights inform stay analysis)
Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist. Court, S. Dist. Of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2009) (addressing burden on movant to show pressing need for delay and lack of harm to others)