IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

AT CHATTANOOGA

WILLIAM JUSTIN BYRUM )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:20-CV-00099-TAV-SKL
)
CITY OF SODDY-DAISY and OFFICER )
JEFFERY JON RAHN in his individual and )
official capacity. )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

Defendant Jeffery Jon Rahn, in his individual capacity, hereby appears, by and through

counsel, and for this Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of his Motion to Stay All Proceedings

in this matter, states as follows:

While Defendant Rahn believes that any investigation by the Federal Bureau of

Investigation will ultimately exonerate him of any criminal wrongdoing relating to the incident

alleged in the Plaintiff’s present civil matter, the current state of the law does not allow Defendant

Rahn to fully respond to the Plaintiff’s current civil lawsuit, disclose any fact or participate in

discovery in any way in the current civil matter without implicating and potentially impairing the

rights guaranteed to him by the United States Constitution. It is therefore the position of this

Defendant that this Honorable Court should grant a limited stay of all proceedings, as specified

below.

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 34

 I. FACTS

On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff William Justin Byrum (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) filed his civil

complaint in this Honorable Court against Defendants City of Soddy Daisy, Tennessee

(hereinafter, the “City”) and Soddy Daisy police officer Jeffrey Jon Rahn (hereinafter “Officer

Rahn”). (Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1).

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on the evening of June 11, 2019, while on duty, Officer

Rahn observed the Plaintiff traveling in his vehicle at a high rate of speed. (Complaint para. 10).

Plaintiff’s Complaint further alleges that Officer Rahn pursued the Plaintiff in his police vehicle,

with the Plaintiff finally stopping at a residence located on Dallas Hollow Road in Soddy Daisy,

Tennessee. (Id.) Upon locating the Plaintiff, the Complaint alleges that Officer Rahn initiated an

arrest of the Plaintiff and, in the course of effecting that arrest, used excessive force against the

Plaintiff. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Complaint also alleges that Officer Rahn was “deliberately indifferent”

to the medical needs of the Plaintiff during that incident. (Complaint para. 11).

Plaintiff has sued the City of Soddy Daisy and Officer Rahn for the use of alleged excessive

force under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983,

deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s medical needs under the Eighth Amendment to the United

States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983, and for claims against the City for an alleged

failure to train and supervise and claims for an alleged custom or policy of allowing the use of

excessive force. (Complaint, Doc. 1, para. 17-46).

Shortly after the occurrence of the incident that forms the subject of the Plaintiff’s current

civil complaint, Officer Rahn learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter, “FBI”)

had started a criminal investigation pertaining to the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s current

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 35

 civil complaint. (Affidavit of Lance Pope, para. 7). In that regard, Officer Rahn retained a criminal

defense attorney, Lance Pope, to represent him regarding the United States government’s

investigation of this matter. (Affidavit of Lance Pope , para. 6). As of the time of filing this Motion,

that United States government’s investigation is ongoing. (Affidavit of Lance Pope, para. 8).

II. LAW AND ARGUMENT

A. THIS HONORABLE COURT SHOULD GRANT A STAY OF ALL

PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CIVIL MATTER GIVEN THE PENDING CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATION PERTAINING TO THIS INCIDENT AND THE DEFENDANT,
OFFICER RAHN
As stated previously herein, Officer Rahn has learned that he is currently under investigation

by the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the very incident that is the subject of Plaintiff’s

current civil complaint. Such an investigation makes Officer Rahn’s ability to participate in this

civil action problematic, at best. To allow the civil matter to proceed at this time would place

Officer Rahn in a situation where he would need to choose between defending himself against the

Plaintiff civil complaint (yet disregard his rights granted to him under the Fifth Amendment to the

United States Constitution) or to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights (and not be able to fully

defend himself from Plaintiff’s civil lawsuit). To the extent that Officer Rahn is required to file

an Answer or compelled to participate in any form of discovery in this case, such a requirement

would implicate and impair the rights of Officer Rahn granted to him by the Fifth Amendment of

the United States Constitution. It is therefore respectfully requested that this Honorable Court

grant a limited stay of all proceedings in the current civil case.

“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control

the disposition of the causes in its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel

and for litigants, and the entry of such an order ordinarily rests with the sound discretion of the

District Court.” Ohio Envtl. Council v. U.S. Dist.Court, S. Dist. of Ohio, E. Div., 565 F.2d 393,

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 36

 396 (6th Cir.1977) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Clinton v. Jones, 520

U.S. 681, 706, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997) (“[T]he District Court has broad discretion

to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”). District courts have

“broad discretion in determining whether to stay a civil action while a criminal action is pending

or impending.” Chao v Fleming, 498 F.Supp.2d 1034, 1037 (W.D. Mich. July 6, 2007).

District courts generally consider and balance the following factors when determining

whether a stay of civil proceedings is appropriate in a given case: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 defendant has been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiff in

proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff caused by the delay; 4) the

private interests of and burden on the defendant; 5) the interests of the court; and 6) the public

interest. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In addition to those factors, district courts “should consider ‘the extent to which the

defendant's Fifth Amendment rights are implicated.’ ” Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45

F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir.1995) (quoting Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902

(9th Cir.1989)). “[T]he burden is on the party seeking the stay to show that there is pressing need

for delay, and that neither the other party nor the public will suffer harm from entry of the order.”

Ohio Envtl. Council, 565 F.2d at 396.

The most important factor is the balance of the hardships, but “[t]he district court must also

consider whether granting the stay will further the interest in economical use of judicial time and

resources.” Int'l Bhd. Of Elec. Workers v. AT & T Network Sys., No. 88–3895, 879 F.2d 864,

1989 WL 78212, at *8 (6th Cir. Jul. 17, 1989) (internal citations omitted).

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 37

 In the present matter, a careful balancing of the above factors shows that this Honorable

Court should issue an immediate stay of all proceedings.

First, the issues and facts contained in the Plaintiff’s civil lawsuit are among those very

facts and issues that are currently under investigation by the FBI. The affidavit of the criminal

defense attorney for Officer Rahn, Lance Pope, establishes that Officer Rahn’s actions during his

arrest of the Plaintiff that form the basis of the Plaintiff’s civil action are being investigated by the

FBI for potential criminal charges. In situations where a parallel criminal matter is ongoing, this

very Court, and other United States District Courts, has granted a stay of proceedings. See,

e.g.Ogle v. Burns, et al, No. 3:19-cv-87 (E.D.T.N); Medina-Resendiz v Kaylor, et al., No. 1:15-

CV-86 (E.D.T.N.); Raudenbush v. Monroe County, et al., No. 3:11-cv-625 (E.D.T.N.); Gifford v

Hall, 2013 WL 2897956 (M.D. Tenn. 2013) (the Court holding that it was “in the best interest of

the parties, the Court and the public” to resolve the criminal matter before taking up the civil

lawsuit since the issues in the criminal and civil matter overlapped). Thus, this factor weighs

heavily in favor of this Honorable Court granting a stay of proceedings in this case.

The next factor district courts consider when determining whether a stay of proceedings is

appropriate is the status of the case, and whether an indictment has been issued. In the present

civil case, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was just filed on April 15, 2020. (Complaint, Doc. 1). Thus, no

Defendant has even yet filed an Answer and none of the parties have engaged in any discovery in

this case. As it pertains to the criminal investigation by the FBI relating to Officer Rahn, he has

not been indicted by the United States government at the time of the filing of this Motion to Stay.

(Affidavit of Lance Pope, para. 9). Nevertheless, the peril to Officer Rahn in being forced to

proceed and choose between his Fifth Amendment rights or defending himself in this civil

proceeding is self-evident. In fact, it is the position of Officer Rahn that even filing an Answer in

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 38

 this case could potentially implicate his Fifth Amendment rights. Tennessee law treats responsive

pleadings as a statement of a party that may be used against that party. First Tennessee N.A. v

Mungan, 779 S.W.2d 798, 801 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989).

In addition, the fact that an indictment has not currently been issued against Officer Rahn

is not determinative as to the issue of whether this Court should grant a stay of all proceedings. In

Eastwood v. United States, 2008 WL 5412857 (E.D. Tenn. 2008) this very Court held that a pre-

indictment stay of civil case that relates to a pending criminal investigation may be granted if the

government is conducting an active parallel investigation. As stated in Eastwood, public policy

supports the grant of a stay of civil proceedings where a criminal investigation is pending.

The Court should also consider the prejudice placed on Officer Rahn’s rights versus any

prejudice the Plaintiff would experience due the issuance of a stay of all proceedings in this civil

case. While the Plaintiff would have an interest in attempting to vindicate the alleged violation of

his rights by way of a money judgment, it is submitted that this interest pales in comparison to the

Constitutional rights of Officer Rahn and the potential of criminal liability if he is forced to file a

responsive pleading and participate in discovery in this civil matter.

Next, the Court should consider the interests of and the burden on the Defendant in

determining that a stay of proceedings is appropriate in this matter. As stated above previously,

Officer Rahn’s Fifth Amendment rights are significantly implicated if he is made to engage in

discovery in this case. Such a proposition is self-evident. In fact, Officer Rahn’s Fifth Amendment

rights could be implicated by even being made to file an Answer to the Plaintiff’s Complaint. See

First Tennessee, N.A., 770 S.W.2d at 801. Should Officer Rahn be made to answer the Plaintiff’s

civil complaint, those responses could potentially be used against him during the investigation by

the United States government referenced previously or during any subsequent criminal

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 39

 proceedings should he be eventually indicted. In fact, should Officer Rahn be forced to respond

to Plaintiff’s Complaint and participate in discovery, but assert his Fifth Amendment right against

self incrimination, such an act could work against him in the civil matter by way of an adverse

inference in that proceeding. “The Supreme Court has established that courts may draw an adverse

inference in a civil matter based upon the invocation of the Fifth Amendment.” Baxter v

Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 319, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976)).

Another factor the Court should consider in whether to grant a stay of all proceedings is

whether the stay would serve judicial economy. It is submitted a stay would indeed promote

judicial economy in that it would negate the need for multiple hearings on discovery matters. In

Maloney v Gordon, 328 F.Supp.2d 508, 513 (D.DE., 2014), the Court held that a stay of a parallel

civil matter “obviates the need to make rulings regarding potential discovery disputes involving

issues that may affect the criminal case.” Id. At 513. Accordingly, staying this civil matter at this

time prevents this issue from arising again every time a party in the lawsuit attempts to force

Officer Rahn to respond to discovery requests. Thus, issuing a stay of all proceedings at this time

is the most efficient use of the Court’s time and therefore promotes judicial economy.

Finally, the interest of the public is best served by a stay of all proceedings. The public is

served by the staying of this case in that it guarantees the rights of Officer Rahn. See, e.g., Javier

H. v Garcia-Botello, 218 F.R.D. 72, 75 (W.D. NY, 2003), (the “public’s interest in the integrity of

the criminal case is entitled to precedence over the civil litigant.”)

III. CONCLUSION

Given the above factors and analysis, it is submitted that this Honorable Court should issue

a stay of all proceedings in this matter. This Defendant would propose and request that this Court

issue a stay of all proceedings, including a stay on the requirement that any defendant file an

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 40

 answer or other responsive pleading to the Plaintiff’s Complaint. It is further requested that this

Court order that the parties report back to the Court in 6 months time from the date of the order of

a stay of all proceedings, at which time the parties will advise as to the need for an additional

extension.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 8th day of June, 2020.

JEFFERY JON RAHN, in his individual capacity

By: /s/Reid A. Spaulding, BPR No. 023363

REID A. SPAULDING, BPR NO. 023363
WATSON, ROACH, BATSON
& LAUDERBACK, P.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 131
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901-0131
(865) 637-1700

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 41

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 8, 2020, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically.
Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court's electronic filing system to all parties
indicated on the electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular U.S. mail.
Parties may access this filing through the Court's electronic filing system:

Clayton M. Whittaker
MCKOON, WILLIAMS, ATCHLEY
& STUCLE, PLLC
633 Chestnut Street, Suite 1500
Chattanooga, TN 37450
(423) 756-6400

Ronald D. Wells
ROBINSON, SMITH & WELLS, PLLC
633 Chestnut Street, Suite 700
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37450
(423) 756-5051

Dated June 8th, 2020.

/s/Reid A. Spaulding, BPR No. 023363

REID A. SPAULDING, BPR NO. 023363
WATSON, ROACH, BATSON
& LAUDERBACK, P.L.C.
Attorneys at Law
P.O. Box 131
Knoxville, Tennessee 37901-0131
(865) 637-1700

Case 1:20-cv-00099-TAV-SKL Document 10 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 42