{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "Case 1:20-cv-00839-JEB Document 122-3 Filed 04/15/21 Page 55 of 88",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cv-00839-JEB Document 122-3 Filed 04/15/21 Page 55 of 88 App.-0135\n\nARGUMENT\n\n\"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.\" Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–08 (1997); see also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (noting that courts may “defer [] civil proceedings pending the completion of parallel criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action”); Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986) (““[A] court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action.””) (quoting SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1372 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (en banc)) (ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Although civil and criminal proceedings covering the same ground may sometimes justify deferring civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings are completed, a court may instead enter an appropriate protective order.”). “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55; see also Ofosu v. McElroy, 98 F.3d 694, 699 (2d Cir.1996) (““A request for a stay is an appeal to equity.””).\n\nCourts have the discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions “when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action.” United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (citations omitted); Steiner v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 85 P.3d 135, 143 (Colo. 2004) (suggesting trial court erred in failing to consider the stay of a civil proceeding while parallel criminal matter was pending). The determination of whether to grant a stay pending resolution of a related criminal proceeding depends on the particular circumstances of a case.\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003799",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cv-00839-JEB Document 122-3 Filed 04/15/21 Page 55 of 88 App.-0135",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.\" Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); accord Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706–08 (1997); see also United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (noting that courts may “defer [] civil proceedings pending the completion of parallel criminal prosecutions when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action”); Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d Cir. 1986) (““[A] court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of justice seem to require such action.””) (quoting SEC v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1372 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (en banc)) (ellipses and internal quotation marks omitted); Nosik v. Singe, 40 F.3d 592, 596 (2d Cir. 1994) (“Although civil and criminal proceedings covering the same ground may sometimes justify deferring civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings are completed, a court may instead enter an appropriate protective order.”). “How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55; see also Ofosu v. McElroy, 98 F.3d 694, 699 (2d Cir.1996) (““A request for a stay is an appeal to equity.””).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Courts have the discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose protective orders and conditions “when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action.” United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970) (citations omitted); Steiner v. Minnesota Life Ins. Co., 85 P.3d 135, 143 (Colo. 2004) (suggesting trial court erred in failing to consider the stay of a civil proceeding while parallel criminal matter was pending). The determination of whether to grant a stay pending resolution of a related criminal proceeding depends on the particular circumstances of a case.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003799",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Landis",
      "Clinton",
      "Jones",
      "Kordel",
      "Kashi",
      "Gratsos",
      "Nosik",
      "Singe",
      "Ofosu",
      "McElroy"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "N. Am. Co.",
      "SEC",
      "Dresser Indus.",
      "Minnesota Life Ins. Co."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Colo"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1936",
      "1997",
      "1970",
      "1986",
      "1980",
      "1994",
      "1996",
      "2004",
      "04/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cv-00839-JEB",
      "Document 122-3",
      "App.-0135",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003799"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}