mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019449.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "1:20-cv-02048-DG-KAM",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cv-02048-DG-KAM Document 60 Filed 08/18/20 Page 5 of 13\n\nII. MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR A STAY\n\nA. Applicable Legal Standards\n\nAlthough staying a civil action pending the completion of a criminal prosecution against a named defendant has been characterized as an \"extraordinary remedy,\" Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012), \"courts will not hesitate to grant a stay 'when the interests of justice seem to require' it,\" Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. LaGuardia, 435 F. Supp. 3d 616, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02cv3288 (DLC), 2002 WL 31729501, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)) (granting a stay where there was overlap of issues in the civil and criminal cases and explaining that overlap of issues is a particularly significant factor); see also Trustees of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (same); Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (staying civil discovery pending completion of the criminal case against the defendant); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Shkreli, No. 15-CV-7175 (KAM) (RML), 2016 WL 1122029, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2016) (same).\n\nUltimately, the decision as to whether to issue such a stay rests in the discretion of the district court, Louis Vuitton Malletier, 676 F.3d at 99, and each case requires a particularized inquiry, see id., at 98. In determining whether a civil action should be stayed in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding, courts in this District have generally been guided by six 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 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 plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (5) the interests of the court(s); and (6) the public interest. See id.; see also, e.g., Trustees of\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019449",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cv-02048-DG-KAM Document 60 Filed 08/18/20 Page 5 of 13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. MAXWELL'S MOTION FOR A STAY\n\nA. Applicable Legal Standards",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although staying a civil action pending the completion of a criminal prosecution against a named defendant has been characterized as an \"extraordinary remedy,\" Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012), \"courts will not hesitate to grant a stay 'when the interests of justice seem to require' it,\" Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. LaGuardia, 435 F. Supp. 3d 616, 621 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02cv3288 (DLC), 2002 WL 31729501, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)) (granting a stay where there was overlap of issues in the civil and criminal cases and explaining that overlap of issues is a particularly significant factor); see also Trustees of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech., Inc., 886 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (same); Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (staying civil discovery pending completion of the criminal case against the defendant); Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Shkreli, No. 15-CV-7175 (KAM) (RML), 2016 WL 1122029, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2016) (same).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ultimately, the decision as to whether to issue such a stay rests in the discretion of the district court, Louis Vuitton Malletier, 676 F.3d at 99, and each case requires a particularized inquiry, see id., at 98. In determining whether a civil action should be stayed in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding, courts in this District have generally been guided by six 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 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 plaintiff caused by the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendant; (5) the interests of the court(s); and (6) the public interest. See id.; see also, e.g., Trustees of",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019449",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A.",
      "LY USA, Inc.",
      "Sec. & Exch. Comm'n",
      "LaGuardia",
      "Trustees of Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund",
      "Transworld Mech., Inc.",
      "Volmar Distributors, Inc.",
      "New York Post Co.",
      "Shkreli"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/18/20",
      "Dec. 5, 2002",
      "Mar. 2, 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cv-02048-DG-KAM",
      "02cv3288 (DLC)",
      "15-CV-7175 (KAM) (RML)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019449"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a civil case, with a header indicating the case number and page number. The text discusses the legal standards for granting a stay in a civil action pending the completion of a criminal prosecution. The document includes citations to various court cases and references to specific court decisions."
}