Hiehle et al v. Aber et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS
Consolidated with Civil Action No. 25-cv-02763-GPG-KAS
Civil Action No. 25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS
TERRIANNE PAIGE HIEHLE, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others
similarly situated;
KATRINA LILE, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
and
KIMBERLI LASHAWAY, in her individual capacity and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EDWARD ABER, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Jail Commander of
the La Plata County Jail;
LA PLATA COUNTY, COLORADO;
LA PLATA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE;
SEAN SMITH, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Sheriff of La Plata
County;
MICHAEL SLADE, in his individual capacity;
JACOB HARRIS, in his individual capacity; and
JOHN/JANE DOES #1-10, in their individual capacities,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-cv-02763-GPG-KAS
C.B.;
R.C.;
J.E.;
S.H.;
A.H.;
A.H.;
M.J.;
J.L.;
M.N.;
E.P.;
S.R.;
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 14

2
M.S.;
A.S.;
N.T.;
K.T.;
R.W.;
I.W.; and
J.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
EDWARD ABER, in his individual and official capacity as Jail Commander of the La
Plata County Jail;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LA PLATA;
JACOB HARRIS, in his individual capacity;
MICHAEL SLADE, in his individual capacity; and
SEAN SMITH, in his official capacity as Sheriff of La Plata County,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHRYN A. STARNELLA
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Aber’s Motion to Stay Proceedings
[#89] (“Def. Aber’s Motion”) and Plaintiffs Hiehle, Lile, and Lashaway’s (hereinafter, the
“Hiehle Plaintiffs’”) Motion to Stay Claims [#90] (“Hiele Pls.’ Motion”).
In the Motion [#89], Defendant Aber moves to stay “all proceedings and discovery”
in this action pending resolution of his parallel criminal proceedings. Neither the Hiehle
Plaintiffs nor the La Plata County Defendants oppose the Motion [#89], but the C.B.
Plaintiffs oppose. The C.B. Plaintiffs filed a Response [#100], and Defendant Aber filed a
Reply [#107]. Notwithstanding any stay that should enter, Defendant Aber does not object
to the Court’s adjudication of the La Plata County Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 14

3
[#101] because “Mr. Aber’s Fifth Amendment interests would not be implicated by the
same.” Def. Aber’s Motion [#89] at 3 n.1.
In the Motion [#90], the Hiehle Plaintiffs seek to stay their individual claims pending
resolution of class certification in the consolidated action. In the Certificate of Conferral,
the Hiehle Plaintiffs state that neither the C.B. Plaintiffs nor Defendant Aber oppose the
Motion [#90], but the La Plata County Defendants oppose. Hiele Pls.’ Motion [#90] at 1
n.1. The La Plata County Defendants did not file a Response to the Motion [#90], and
their deadline to do so has passed.
The Motions [#89, #90] have been referred to the undersigned. See Memorandum
[#91].1 The Court has considered the Motions [#89, #90] and related briefing, the case
file, and the applicable case law. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the
Motions [#89, #90].
I. 	Background
This consolidated action concerns the Hiehle Plaintiffs’ and the C.B. Plaintiffs’
allegations that Defendant Aber, while serving as Commander of the La Plata County Jail,
accessed and viewed, for his own sexual gratification, video recordings of inmates
subjected to strip searches. See Hiehle Pls.’ Compl. [#1] ¶¶ 2-4; C.B. Pls.’ Am. Compl.
[#84] at 2-3. The Plaintiffs also assert causes of action against the La Plata County
Defendants based on their failure to intervene in Defendant Aber’s alleged conduct. See
Hiehle Pls.’ Compl. [#1] ¶¶ 7-8; C.B. Pls.’ Am. Compl. [#84] at 2-3.
The Hiehle Plaintiffs filed their complaint in this action, Civil Action No. 25-cv-
02531-GPG-KAS, in August 2025. Hiehle Pls.’ Compl. [#1]. In September 2025, they
1 All parties do not consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. See Signed Consent/Non-Consent
Form [#42].
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 14

4
moved to consolidate their case with the C.B. Plaintiffs’ case, Civil Action No. 25-cv-
02763-GPG-KAS. 	Motion 	to 	Consolidate 	[#38]. 	The 	Court 	granted 	the 	Motion 	to
Consolidate and appointed the C.B. Plaintiffs’ counsel as interim class counsel. Order
[#49]; Order [#73] at 3. The Hiehle Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#1] remains active on the docket,
and the La Plata County Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss [#54]. Meanwhile, the
C.B. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint [#84], and the La Plata County Defendants
filed a corresponding Motion to Dismiss [#101]. The Hiehle Plaintiffs’ and the C.B.
Plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the respective Motions to Dismiss [#54, #101] is May 15,
2026. Order [#79]; Order [#109].
Defendant Aber has separately been charged with 118 criminal counts with respect
to the alleged conduct. See Motion [#89] at 2. The criminal proceeding is pending in La
Plata County and is captioned The People of the State of Colorado v. Aber, Edward J.,
Case No. 2025M532. Id.
II. 	Analysis
A. 	Defendant Aber’s Motion [#89]
“The Constitution does not generally require a stay of civil proceedings pending
the outcome of criminal proceedings, absent substantial prejudice to a party’s rights.”
Creative Consumer Concepts, Inc. v. Kreisler, 563 F.3d 1070, 1080 (10th Cir. 2009). In
the interest of justice, however, a court may stay a civil action until completion of parallel
criminal proceedings at its discretion. See DTC Energy Grp., Inc. v. Hirschfeld, No. 17-
cv-01718-PAB-KLM, 2019 WL 9512846, at *1 (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2019); AIG Life Ins. Co.
v. Phillips, No. 07-cv-00500-PSF-MEH, 2007 WL 2116383, at *2 (D. Colo. July 20, 2007).
“When deciding whether the interests of justice seem to require a stay, the court must
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 14

5
consider the extent to which a party’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated[.]” Fine v.
Tumpkin, No. 17-cv-02140-WJM-MEH, 2018 WL 317466, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2018)
(quoting Creative Consumer Concepts, 563 F.3d at 1080).
To determine whether a stay is warranted in a particular case, a court must
generally balance the plaintiff’s interests “in moving forward with the litigation against the
interests of a defendant asserting Fifth Amendment rights who faces the choice of being
prejudiced in the civil litigation if those rights are asserted or prejudiced in the criminal
litigation if those rights are waived.” In re CFS-Related Secs. Fraud Litig., 256 F. Supp.
2d 1227, 1236 (N.D. Okla. 2003) (citation omitted). The Court may also consider
alternatives to a general stay, including “the imposition of protective orders, sealed
interrogatories, a stay for a finite period of time, or a stay limited to a specific subject
matter.” AIG Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2116383, at *2 (quoting In re CFS, 256 F. Supp. 2d
at 1236).
When exercising its discretion, the Court considers the following factors:
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 court; and
6. 	the public interest.
Id.
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 14

6
The first factor is the “most important factor in ruling on a motion to stay.” Hilda M.
v. Brown, No. 10-cv-02495-PAB-KMT, 2010 WL 5313755, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 20, 2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The parties agree that factual overlap
exists between the criminal and civil proceedings as far as Defendant Aber is concerned.
Compare Def. Aber’s Motion [#89] at 2 (“The criminal charges against Mr. Aber are based
on the same alleged conduct giving rise to the civil complaints against him.”), with
Response [#100] at 2 (“The conduct that gives rise to the criminal case against Mr. Aber
is part of the conduct that gives rise to Plaintiffs’ claims in this case.”). Based on the filings
in this matter, the Court agrees. To the extent that this action involves “more claims of
wrongdoing against a vaster array of defendants,” see Hilda M., 2010 WL 5313755, at *3,
the Court finds that the primary wrongful conduct was that of Defendant Aber. The rest of
the claims relate back to the original wrongdoing in one respect or another. See, e.g.,
C.B. Pls.’ First Am. Compl. [#84] at 41-45 (asserting Claims 5-8 against Defendants Slade
and Harris on the theory that they failed to intervene to stop Defendant Aber’s actions);
id. at 45-50 (asserting Claims 9-11 against the Board and Sheriff Defendants on the
theory that they failed to adequately supervise or discipline Defendant Aber, were
deliberately indifferent to Defendant Aber’s actions, and failed to train employees to
monitor, limit, and/or report Defendant Aber’s actions). Accordingly, the Court finds that
this factor weighs heavily in favor of imposition of a stay of discovery. See Hilda M., 2010
WL 5313755, at *3; Fine, 2018 WL 317466, at *4.
With respect to the second factor, i.e., the status of the criminal case, the Court
considers whether the criminal case is in the pre- or post-indictment stage. AIG Life Ins.
Co., 2007 WL 2116383, at *2. “A stay is more likely warranted if an indictment has already
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 14

7
been issued because (1) the likelihood that a defendant may make incriminating
statements is greatest after an indictment has issued, and (2) the prejudice to the plaintiff[]
in the civil case is reduced since the criminal case will likely be quickly resolved due to
Speedy Trial Act considerations.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here,
charges have been filed against Defendant Aber and he has entered a plea of not guilty.
Motion [#89] at 2-3. His criminal trial is scheduled to commence on August 10, 2026. Id.
Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	third 	factor, 	i.e., 	the 	plaintiffs’ 	interest 	in 	proceeding
expeditiously weighed against the prejudice caused by a delay, the Court recognizes that
the C.B. Plaintiffs oppose a stay. Response [#100] at 4-7. Citing In re CFS, 256 F. Supp.
2d at 1239, the C.B. Plaintiffs assert that they are “entitled to a speedy discovery process,”
which is all the more true “in the context of complex litigation which must proceed in an
efficient manner.” Response [#100] at 4. The C.B. Plaintiffs further argue that this factor
weighs strongly in their favor due to the putative class’s large size and because a criminal
conviction could impede their ability to collect on a judgment and be made whole.
Specifically, the C.B. Plaintiffs note that, if Defendant Aber is convicted of a crime, the La
Plata County Defendants may not have to indemnify him. See Response [#100] at 5-6;
see also COLO. REV . STAT. § 13-21-131(4)(a) (“A public entity does not have to indemnify
a peace officer if the peace officer was convicted of a criminal violation for the conduct
from which the claim arises unless the peace officer’s employer was a causal factor in the
violation, through its action or inaction.”). The Court recognizes the C.B. Plaintiffs’ interest
in protecting their ability to collect a judgment. However, that interest does not outweigh
Defendant Aber’s interest in “avoiding the quandary of choosing between waiving [his]
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 7 of 14

8
Fifth Amendment rights or effectively forfeiting the civil case.” Hilda M., 2010 WL
5313755, at *5 (quoting Trs. of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat’l Pension Fund v.
Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1140 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)). And even if it did, the
pace at which this case is likely to proceed further undermines the C.B. Plaintiffs’
argument. This case is in its early stages, and the La Plata County Defendants’ Motions
to Dismiss [#54, #101] are not yet fully briefed. To the extent that the C.B. Plaintiffs
endeavor to race to a judgment in this case before the criminal trial concludes, it is not a
race that the C.B. Plaintiffs are likely to win, even absent a stay of discovery. Accordingly,
if this factor weighs against a stay, it does so only marginally. See Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
v. Next Generation Energy, LLC, No. 14-cv-01580-REB-KLM, 2014 WL 7251678, at *2
(D. Colo. Dec. 19, 2014) (“As a practical matter, therefore, it is highly unlikely that the
Court will adjudicate whether or not Plaintiff has a duty to defend Defendants Kreutzman,
Kreutzman Construction, Inc. and Next Generation Energy, LLC before completion of Mr.
Kreutzman’s criminal trial. Hence, staying this case until the conclusion of the criminal
trial is not likely to result in any significant delay in determining whether Plaintiff has a
duty to defend.”).
With respect to the fourth factor, Defendant Aber has a substantial interest—
although not an absolute right—in avoiding the Fifth Amendment dilemma described
above. DTC Energy Grp., 2019 WL 9512846, at *3; Creative Consumer Concepts, 563
F.3d at 1080. The C.B. Plaintiffs point the Court to Walbridge v. City of Oilton, 788 F.
Supp. 3d 1194, 1199 (N.D. Okla. 2025), in which the court was not convinced that the
defendant had “yet” been faced with such a quandary in the context of that case.
However, the Walbridge court was very concerned about the substantial prejudice that a
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 8 of 14

9
stay would impose on the plaintiff who was 76 years old and suffered from health issues.
Walbridge, 788 F.Supp.3d at 1198. Because such a concern has not been raised here,
the Court finds Walbridge unpersuasive. Further, even if the Fifth Amendment quandary
does not come to pass, as the C.B. Plaintiffs suggest, the Tenth Circuit has advised that
“[a] district court may also stay a civil proceeding in deference to a parallel criminal
proceeding for other reasons, such as to prevent either party from taking advantage of
broader civil discovery rights or to prevent the exposure of the criminal defense strategy
to the prosecution.” Creative Consumer Concepts, 563 F.3d at 1080-81. Here, where
substantial overlap likely exists between the putative class members and the criminal
victims, the Court finds this last point particularly salient. It also causes the Court to doubt
the efficacy of any less drastic alternative to a total discovery stay. See Fine, 2018 WL
317466, at *5. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
With respect to the fifth factor, “[t]he Court has a strong interest in keeping litigation
moving to conclusion without necessary delay.” In re CFS, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 1241.
However, in this case, final resolution of the parallel criminal proceedings could increase
the possibility of settlement and may ultimately reduce the scope of discovery. AIG Life
Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2116383, at *4; Windham for Marquis Props., LLC v. Snyder, No. 2:18-
cv-00063-RJS-EJF, 2018 WL 4100512, at *4 (D. Utah Aug. 28, 2018) (“Proceeding first
with the criminal matter may narrow the issues in this case and streamline discovery,
which would ultimately benefit this case and expedite resolution.”). On balance, this factor
is neutral.
With respect to the sixth factor, the public’s only interest in this case is a general
interest in its efficient and just resolution. Brown v. Tennison, No. 19-cv-00941-RM-SKC,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 9 of 14

10
2020 WL 12371300, at *4 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2020). While a stay will result in a delay of
the proceedings and, thus, contravene any “speedy” administration of the case, the court
must also ensure a “just” determination of the action. Berreth v. Frazee, No. 19-cv-00027-
PAB-KMT, 2019 WL 10250759, at *2 (D. Colo. Apr. 1, 2019). Considering these
competing goals, the Court also finds that this factor is neutral.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court concludes that staying Defendant Aber’s
Answer deadline and discovery in this matter is warranted.
B. 	The Hiehle Plaintiffs’ Motion [#90]
The Hiehle Plaintiffs seek to stay their individual claims pending a ruling on the
C.B. Plaintiffs’ anticipated motion to certify the putative class. Motion [#90] at 1. The
Hiehle Plaintiffs reason that “[i]f the Court does certify a class under the C.B. Complaint,
then the Hiehle Plaintiffs will have the option to join that class, the same as any class
member.” Id. at 2. Alternatively, “[i]f the Court does not certify a class under the C.B.
Complaint, the Hiehle Plaintiffs’ individual claims could then be reactivated on the docket
at that time.” Id. Either way, the Hiehle Plaintiffs argue, “a stay would promote efficiency,
avoid duplication, and allow Interim Class Counsel to move the case forward, as the Court
has ordered.” Id.
Although a stay of proceedings is generally disfavored, the Court “has broad
discretion in managing its docket, which includes decisions regarding issuing stays for all
or part of a proceeding.” White Knuckle, IP, LLC v. Elec. Arts Inc., No. 15-cv-00036-DN-
BCW, 2015 WL 5022579, at *1 (D. Utah Aug. 24, 2015). In exercising its discretion, the
Court considers the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously with discovery and the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 10 of 14

11
burden on the defendants of proceeding with discovery; (3) the convenience to the Court
of staying discovery; (4) the interests of nonparties in either staying or proceeding with
discovery; and (5) the public interest in either staying or proceeding with discovery. String
Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL
894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006).
The first factor concerns the plaintiff’s interest in proceeding expeditiously and any
prejudice the plaintiff would experience because of a delay. String Cheese Incident, 2006
WL 894955, at *2. Although the Hiehle Plaintiffs have an interest in proceeding
expeditiously with their claims, they seek the instant stay so that they can decide whether
to join the putative class or proceed with their individual claims before expending further
time and resources. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
The second factor concerns the burden on the defendant of proceeding with
discovery. Id. Here, the instant stay is proposed by the Hiehle Plaintiffs, not Defendants,
as the String Cheese Incident factors contemplate. The Hiehle Plaintiffs represent that
the La Plata County Defendants nevertheless oppose the Motion [#90]. But without any
input from them, the Court is unable to discern any material prejudice to the La Plata
County Defendants by the proposed stay. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a stay.
The third factor concerns the convenience of the Court. String Cheese Incident,
2006 	WL 	894955, 	at 	*2. 	The 	Court 	recognizes 	that 	an 	“ill-advised 	stay” 	may
inconvenience the courts by making the “docket less predictable and hence, less
manageable.” Raven v. Williams, No. 10-cv-01727-WJM-SKC, 2019 WL 4954640, at *2
(D. Colo. Oct. 8, 2019) (citation omitted). Here, however, the proposed stay does not
make the Court’s docket less predictable or manageable. The putative class action will
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 11 of 14

12
proceed following resolution of the parallel criminal proceeding, and the proposed stay
merely pauses the Hiehle Plaintiffs’ individual claims in the event that they decide to join
the class following class certification. Therefore, staying this matter serves the interests
of efficiency and judicial economy. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Boellstorff, 540
F.3d 1223, 1226 n.7 (10th Cir. 2008) (noting that the District Court, “in the interests of
judicial economy,” stayed the plaintiff’s individual claims until the plaintiff decided whether
to proceed individually or as a member of the putative class).
The fourth factor concerns the interests of nonparties. String Cheese Incident,
2006 WL 894955, at *2. There are no identified nonparties with significant particularized
interests in this case. Accordingly, this factor neither weighs in favor of or against staying
discovery.
The fifth factor concerns the public interest. String Cheese Incident, LLC, 2006 WL
894955, at *2. “[T]here is a general public interest in the speedy resolution of legal
disputes,” but “there is also a strong public policy in avoiding unnecessary expenditures
of public and private resources on litigation.” Ashaheed v. Currington, No. 17-cv-03002-
WJM-SKC, 2019 WL 11690136, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2019) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). Here, requiring the Hiehle Plaintiffs to advance their individual
claims before the Court adjudicates the class certification issue, and before the Hiehle
Plaintiffs have an opportunity to decide whether to join the class, would not serve the
public interest in avoiding unnecessary expenditures. Therefore, this factor weighs in
favor of a stay.
Weighing the relevant factors, the Court finds that four factors weigh in favor of
staying discovery and one factor is neutral. Thus, the Court concludes that staying the
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 12 of 14

13
Hiehle Plaintiffs’ individual claims pending resolution of the class certification issue is
appropriate.
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Aber’s Motion [#89] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Aber’s responsive pleading deadline
and all discovery in this matter is STAYED until August 21, 2026—one week following
the date on which Defendant Aber expects his criminal trial to conclude. See Response
[#100] at 9. This stay does not apply to the resolution of the La Plata County Defendants’
pending Motion to Dismiss [#101].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Aber’s answer or other response to
the C.B. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint [#84] is due September 4, 2026, 14 days after
the stay is lifted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Aber shall file a Status Report
concerning the status of his criminal proceedings no later than August 21, 2026, at which
time the Court will determine whether the stay should be extended.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hiele Plaintiffs’ Motion [#90] is GRANTED.
The Hiehle Plaintiffs’ claims are STAYED pending further order of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hiehle Plaintiffs shall, within 14 days of an
order resolving certification of the putative C.B. class, file either a Motion to Lift the Stay
or a Status Report regarding the Hiehle Plaintiffs’ Complaint [#1].
Dated: May 12, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 13 of 14

14
Kathryn A. Starnella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-02531-GPG-KAS Document 110 filed 05/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 14 of 14