Preview
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
The Estate of NICOLE BENNETT, )
KEVIN BENNETT, Individually and )
as Administrator for the Estate, and as )
next friend and Guardian ad Litem for )
LAUREN BENNETT, EMILY )
BENNETT, and ALLIE BENNETT, )
minors, )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N13C-04-194 ALR
)
REV. DANNY TICE, Individually and )
as Pastor of BAY SHORE )
COMMUNITY CHURCH; BAY SHORE )
COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC., a )
Delaware Corporation and MATTHEW )
BURTON, )
Defendants. )
On Motion for a Stay of Discovery by Defendants Rev. Danny Tice,
Bay Shore Community Church, and Bay Shore Community Church, Inc.’s
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF BENCH RULING DENYING MOTION FOR STAY
Defendants Reverend Danny Tice, Bay Shore Community Church, and Bay
Shore Community Church, Inc. (“Moving Defendants”) have requested that the
Court impose a stay of discovery in this civil litigation. Plaintiffs oppose
imposition of a stay. The Court held a hearing on March 12, 2013. The Court
DENIED the Motion of Stay of Discovery.
The Court makes the following findings in support of its bench ruling:
1. This civil litigation arises out of the alleged kidnapping, rape and murder of
Nicole Bennett, a volunteer at Bay Shore Community Church, on or about June 14,
2012. Plaintiffs allege that the crimes were committed by Defendant Matthew
Burton who was an employee of Bay Shore Community Church. In the Complaint,
Moving Defendants are alleged to have violated certain common law duties to
Plaintiffs, including negligent hiring, retention, and supervision of Burton.
2. Burton was convicted in Delaware for Failing to Register as a Tier I Sex
Offender in Delaware. After the conviction entered, Burton was extradited to
Maryland in August 2012 for charges of First Degree Murder and Rape. Those
Maryland charges subsequently were declared Nolle Prosequi. Burton was
indicted in Delaware for Rape and First Degree Murder charges on August 19,
2013. Burton has challenged extradition to Delaware, and his appeal of the
extradition order is pending.
3. This civil action has been pending since April 2013. In addition to the Motion
for Stay of Discovery, Moving Defendants also filed a Motion to Dismiss, a
Motion for Summary Judgment, an Application for Certification of an
Interlocutory Appeal and a Motion for Protective Order. All motions have been
denied.
4. The Court “has the inherent power to stay proceedings in control of its docket-
after balancing the competing interests.” 1 The Court has broad discretionary
power to exercise its judgment when balancing competing interests and
1
Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Steigler, 300 A.2d 16, 18 (Del. Super. 1972), aff’d, 306 A.2d 742 (Del.
1973).
2
considering time and effort for the court, counsel and litigants.2 The Court may
grant a stay where forwarding a proceeding would threaten the constitutional rights
of any party. 3 The moving party has the burden of showing how that party’s
constitutional rights will be violated. 4
5. Moving Defendants contend that a stay is appropriate because the facts at issue
in this civil lawsuit and the facts that will be resolved in connection with the State
of Delaware’s criminal prosecution are indistinguishable. This is incorrect. The
questions of liability of the Moving Defendants to the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit will
not be at issue in the criminal case.
6. Moving Defendants conceded that they have no standing to raise concerns about
Burton’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Moving Defendants
are correct that they do not have standing. Moreover, even if Burton raised these
concerns himself – which he has not – Delaware jurisprudence does not support a
blanket stay on the grounds that one party may assert the right against self-
incrimination in response to certain specific questions. 5
7. Moving Defendants further contend that the interests of judicial economy
support the granting of a stay because Burton may be acquitted of the pending
2
Id. (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)).
3
Id. at 17.
4
See Steigler, 300 A.2d at 18 (denying the defendant’s motion for a stay because he “ha[d] not
met his burden of showing his constitutional rights will be violated if [the] proceedings [were]
not stayed.”).
5
Id.
3
charges in Delaware. However, acquittal for failure of proof beyond a reasonable
doubt does not preclude civil liability established by a preponderance of the
evidence.
8. Plaintiffs have an interest in prompt resolution of this civil lawsuit. Moving
Defendants seek a stay “until the criminal matter against Matthew Burton has been
decided.”6 It is not known when Burton’s challenge to extradition will be
resolved. Moreover, it is not clear at what point Moving Defendants would
consider the Burton criminal case “decided.” For example, is it decided after trial?
If convicted at trial, is it decided after sentencing? Is it considered decided only
after the direct appeal? Or would all postconviction proceedings have to be
resolved before the criminal case is “decided.”
9. The Court finds that a stay of this civil lawsuit is not in the interest of justice.
Balancing of the competing interests militates strongly in favor of prompt
resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses claimed by Defendants. As the
Stiegler court ruled, “any other result would unduly prejudice an innocent party
who in good faith pursues a cause of action.” 7
6
Motion for Stay of Discovery, ¶ 8.
7
Stiegler, 300 A.2d at 19.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, for the reasons enumerated here and those stated
on the record on March 13, 2014, Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Andrea L. Rocanelli
______________________________
The Honorable Andrea L. Rocanelli
5