Filed: Aug. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER WENDY B. VITTER , District Judge . Given that there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States Attorney's Office that may involve this case or witnesses or counsel to this proceeding, the Court finds that a stay is warranted. A civil plaintiff who is also a criminal defendant has both a Fifth Amendment right to silence and a due process right to a judicial determination of her civil action. 1 In determining whether to stay a civil proceeding in the face of parallel c
Summary: ORDER WENDY B. VITTER , District Judge . Given that there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States Attorney's Office that may involve this case or witnesses or counsel to this proceeding, the Court finds that a stay is warranted. A civil plaintiff who is also a criminal defendant has both a Fifth Amendment right to silence and a due process right to a judicial determination of her civil action. 1 In determining whether to stay a civil proceeding in the face of parallel cr..
More
ORDER
WENDY B. VITTER, District Judge.
Given that there is an ongoing criminal investigation by the United States Attorney's Office that may involve this case or witnesses or counsel to this proceeding, the Court finds that a stay is warranted.
A civil plaintiff who is also a criminal defendant has both a Fifth Amendment right to silence and a due process right to a judicial determination of her civil action.1 In determining whether to stay a civil proceeding in the face of parallel criminal proceedings, courts generally consider: (1) the overlap between the civil and criminal case; (2) the status of the criminal case; (3) private interests of the plaintiff; (4) private interests of the defendants; (5) the interests of the court; and (6) the public interest.2
Although no party has requested a stay of this matter, this Court has stayed similar litigation due to the ongoing criminal investigation. See, Reff, et al. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 18-8350 (R. Doc. 106) (Feldman, J.); Henderson-Burkhalter, et al. v. National Union Fire Insur. Co., et al., Civ. A. No. 18-928 (R. Doc. 135) (Barbier, J.); Dorsey, et al. v. Jamair, et al., Civ. A. No. 18-6603 (R. Doc. 162) (Africk, J.); Lee, et al. v. Sentry Casualty Co., et al., Civ. A. No. 19-9978 (R. Doc. 13) (Morgan, J.); Thomas, et al. v. Chambers, et al., Civ. A. No. 18-4373 (R. Doc. 220) (Vance, J.); Frazier, et al. v. Runnels, et al., Civ. A. No. 18-2340 (R. Doc. 111) (Lemelle, J.).
The Court finds that it is in the best interest of the parties, the Court and the public to stay this proceeding pending the conclusion of the criminal investigation. This stay will protect the Plaintiffs from any risks associated with testifying in this proceeding while the criminal investigation is pending. This stay is also in the Defendants' interest, given that proceeding to trial before the criminal investigation concludes could result in certain witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege.
This stay applies to all aspects of this litigation, including any pending motions currently before Magistrate Judge Douglas. The matter may be reopened upon the motion of either party demonstrating that the criminal investigation has concluded, or to present new information for consideration by the Court, at which time a new trial date will be set. Finally, the Plaintiffs are advised that they should obtain independent legal advice concerning any risks they may face in continuing with this litigation. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this civil matter is STAYED and administratively closed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all motions pending before the undersigned and United States Magistrate Judge Douglas are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, reserving to the parties the right to reurge any motions when the above-captioned matter is reopened.
