Link to Owner Dr. Robert B. Pamplin Jr.

FONT & AUDIO

MORE STORIES


David Farley had asked the court for a 'stay' in the civil case while a criminal investigation took place.

PMG FILE PHOTO - Multnomah County Circuit Court has rejected a motion from former West Linn doctor David Farley to stay the sex abuse lawsuit 60 former patients have filed against him. The Multnomah County Circuit Court has rejected a motion to "stay" the civil lawsuit against former West Linn doctor David Farley.

Farley's lawyers asked for the stay — or a two-year delay — in proceedings of the lawsuit while criminal investigations into alleged sex abuse by Farley took place. According to court records, Farley's attorneys requested the stay because Farley "will be required to invoke his constitutional right against self-incrimination because the same conduct is at issue in this civil case."

West Linn police and the Clackamas County District Attorney's Office are currently investigating the allegations against Farley.

More than 60 former patients of Farley's have come forward, and 29 are suing him, the West Linn Family Health Center, Providence Health Services and Legacy health for sexual abuse they say they endured at the hands of Farley while under his care.

"By seeking this stay, the defense tried to sweep the sexual abuse of hundreds of women and children under the rug in a similar way that Dr. Farley concealed his abuse for decades," John Manly and Tom D'Amore, attorneys for the former patients, said in a press release. "A stay of the case would have denied these women justice for many years."

In his decision to reject the stay, Circuit Court Judge Melvin Oden-Orr noted his consideration of several factors.

"Defendant has no absolute right not to be forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege," Oden-Orr wrote in the decision, citing a previous court case used in the argument from Manly and D'Amore.

According to the court documents, one of the reasons Farley used to justify asking for the stay was that the alleged abuse took place five to 17 years ago, though Oden-Orr did not seem to find this compelling enough to grant the motion.

The judge also wrote that the stay would act counter to the court's goal to resolve cases within a year of the filing date.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated the number of plaintiffs who have joined the lawsuit.


You count on us to stay informed and we depend on you to fund our efforts. Quality local journalism takes time and money. Please support us to protect the future of community journalism.

Go to top
JSN Time 2 is designed by JoomlaShine.com | powered by JSN Sun Framework