{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "Case 1:20-cv-00839-JEB Document 22-20 Filed 04/16/21 Page 6 of 8",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "App.-0136\n\nIn deciding to stay the civil case, courts generally weigh six factors: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (5) the interest of the Court; and (6) the public interest. See Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (stay was appropriate so as to not interfere with defendant's Fifth Amendment rights).\n\nHere, consideration of the six factors weighs in favor of staying this action against Ms. Maxwell, largely because Plaintiff controls access to the alleged information and has refused to provide the information to Ms. Maxwell. First, presumably the issues in any purported criminal investigation are identical with the underlying issue in this case: did Ms. Maxwell assist in \"trafficking\" the Plaintiff as she claims from 1999 to 2001. As to the second factor Plaintiff claims to have information about this issue, although no indictment has been issued. Third, given the age of the underlying allegations, almost 20 years, there does not appear to be any prejudice that could be caused by any delay. Fourth, in the event there actually is an investigation and Plaintiff is involved in fomenting the investigation, Ms. Maxwell has a significant interest in knowing about the investigation so that she can appropriately respond and assess any claim of privilege. Concerning factor five, the Court has an interest in controlling the proceedings before it and also has an interest in protecting the rights of the litigants. Appropriate disclosure would allow an informed decision to be made regarding these issues. Finally, there is no compelling public interest that would outweigh disclosure and an informed decision.\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00003800",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "App.-0136",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In deciding to stay the civil case, courts generally weigh six factors: (1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those in the civil case; (2) the status of the criminal case, including whether the defendant has been indicted; (3) the private interests of the plaintiff in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (5) the interest of the Court; and (6) the public interest. See Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (stay was appropriate so as to not interfere with defendant's Fifth Amendment rights).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, consideration of the six factors weighs in favor of staying this action against Ms. Maxwell, largely because Plaintiff controls access to the alleged information and has refused to provide the information to Ms. Maxwell. First, presumably the issues in any purported criminal investigation are identical with the underlying issue in this case: did Ms. Maxwell assist in \"trafficking\" the Plaintiff as she claims from 1999 to 2001. As to the second factor Plaintiff claims to have information about this issue, although no indictment has been issued. Third, given the age of the underlying allegations, almost 20 years, there does not appear to be any prejudice that could be caused by any delay. Fourth, in the event there actually is an investigation and Plaintiff is involved in fomenting the investigation, Ms. Maxwell has a significant interest in knowing about the investigation so that she can appropriately respond and assess any claim of privilege. Concerning factor five, the Court has an interest in controlling the proceedings before it and also has an interest in protecting the rights of the litigants. Appropriate disclosure would allow an informed decision to be made regarding these issues. Finally, there is no compelling public interest that would outweigh disclosure and an informed decision.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003800",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Plaintiff"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund",
      "Transworld Mech., Inc.",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1999",
      "2001",
      "1995",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cv-00839-JEB",
      "Document 22-20",
      "App.-0136",
      "886 F. Supp. 1134",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003800"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a civil case involving Ms. Maxwell and a plaintiff. The text discusses the factors considered when deciding to stay a civil case due to a related criminal investigation. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}