Parent of Jane Doe v. School District of Janesville, 3:17-cv-00451

Jane Doe, a student at Edison Middle School in Janesville, and her parent allege Aaron O’Reilly, a school employee, sexually abused Jane and threatened her to keep it secret.
Plaintiffs also allege school administrator James LeMire ignored warnings and the School District of Janesville failed to meet statutory duties, including employee training and child-abuse reporting under Wisconsin law.
Plaintiffs sued in Wisconsin state court asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress, Title IX violations, and violations of Wis. Stat. § 48.981; defendants removed to federal court.
A parallel state criminal prosecution is pending against O’Reilly; no trial date was set and only limited criminal activity (e.g., calendar call) was scheduled.
Parties jointly moved to stay the federal civil case pending the state criminal matter, arguing risk of self-incrimination and the burden of defending concurrent proceedings.
The court denied the stay without prejudice, allowing the possibility of targeted relief later if concrete prejudice arises.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parallel state criminal prosecution justifies a stay of the federal civil case	Stay needed because O’Reilly may be forced to invoke the Fifth Amendment and face burdens of concurrent litigation	A stay is warranted to avoid prejudice from self-incrimination risk and duplicative defense burdens	Denied: parallel criminal proceeding alone is insufficient; parties failed to show precise, substantial, irreparable prejudice
Whether a blanket Fifth Amendment concern requires a stay	Invoking privilege in civil case would be prejudicial; stay protects against self-incrimination	Blanket Fifth Amendment assertion does not automatically justify a stay	Denied: blanket assertion insufficient; must indicate具体 prejudice
Whether contemporaneous criminal case creates an undue burden justifying stay	Concurrent defenses impose significant burden and logistics	No concrete burdens shown; criminal case had no imminent trial and minimal scheduled activity	Denied: parties did not demonstrate actual, substantial burden
Whether court should grant alternative, targeted relief now	Move for full stay as necessary protection	Court can instead provide targeted relief later if concrete prejudice appears	Court declined stay but left open protective orders or renewed motion showing actual prejudice

United States v. 6250 Ledge Rd., Egg Harbor, Wis., 943 F.2d 721 (7th Cir.) (parallel criminal proceeding alone does not warrant stay; must show substantial prejudice)
United States v. Little Al, 712 F.2d 133 (5th Cir.) (stay reserved for special circumstances with substantial prejudice)
Bruner Corp. v. Balogh, 819 F. Supp. 811 (E.D. Wis.) (a litigant may be required to choose between asserting Fifth Amendment in civil case or testifying)
Brock v. Tolkow, 109 F.R.D. 116 (E.D.N.Y.) (discussion of Fifth Amendment invocation in civil litigation)
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. United States, 124 F.3d 1413 (Fed. Cir.) (discussing factors for stays and when district courts consider discretionary factors)
Chagolla v. City of Chi., 529 F. Supp. 2d 941 (N.D. Ill.) (listing discretionary factors for stays)