20 Cited authorities

Securities Exch. Com'n v. Dresser Indus
628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 621 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding Rule 6(e) inapplicable to documents that "were created [by a Corporation] for [an] independent corporate purpose" even though government agency subpoenaed the documents while grand jury investigation was being conducted
Utah Ass'n of Counties v. Clinton
255 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 232 times
Holding motion for intervention timely under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because case was far from final disposition, no scheduling order had been issued, no trial date set, and no cut-off date for motions set
Trustees of Plumbers Pen. v. Transworld
886 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) Cited 256 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding in May of 1995 that "the Criminal Case should be completed by the end of this year, which would not unreasonably prolong this case"
Creative Consumer v. Kreisler
563 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2009) Cited 153 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court did not err by allowing a party to supplement its brief and present evidence of an affirmative defense because the opposing party "had notice of the defense ... and, therefore, suffered no prejudice from failure to comply with Rule 8(c)"
Kashi v. Gratsos
790 F.2d 1050 (2d Cir. 1986) Cited 197 times
Holding that although "the Constitution . . . does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings . . . a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings"
Campbell v. Eastland
307 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1962) Cited 286 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that allowing civil discovery during a criminal investigation would create "an open invitation to [parties] under criminal investigation to subvert the civil rules into a device for obtaining pre-trial discovery against the Government in criminal proceedings"
S.E.C. v. Nicholas
569 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (C.D. Cal. 2008) Cited 43 times
Finding that the defendant's argument that the Government's request for a stay is inconsistent with the institution of parallel proceedings "overlooks the important purpose of the SEC to protect the integrity of the public markets and ensure truthful corporate disclosures"
S.E.C. v. Credit Bancorp., LTD
297 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2002) Cited 47 times
Recognizing lower court's appointment of receiver "who was granted broad powers to, inter alia, issue subpoenas, marshal [corporate] assets, liquidate those assets, and reinvest the proceeds in Treasury instruments."
S.E.C. v. Chestman
861 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1988) Cited 70 times
Holding that the government "had a discernible interest in intervening in order to prevent discovery in the civil case from being used to circumvent the more limited scope of discovery in the criminal matter"
Brock v. Tolkow
109 F.R.D. 116 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) Cited 76 times
Finding pre-indictment stay appropriate where both the civil and criminal charges arose under ERISA such that the criminal investigation was likely to vindicate the same public interest as the civil suit
Rule 24 - Intervention
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 Cited 9,204 times 35 Legal Analyses
Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them
Section 1589 - Forced labor
18 U.S.C. § 1589 Cited 705 times 14 Legal Analyses
Defining "serious harm" as that which would compel a "reasonable person" to perform or continue performing labor to avoid incurring such harm
Section 1595 - Civil remedy
18 U.S.C. § 1595 Cited 638 times 12 Legal Analyses
Authorizing lawsuits against those who "benefit ... from participation in a [trafficking] venture"

Camayo et al v. John Peroulis & Sons Sheep, Inc. et al

20 Cited authorities

Holding Rule 6(e) inapplicable to documents that "were created [by a Corporation] for [an] independent corporate purpose" even though government agency subpoenaed the documents while grand jury investigation was being conducted

Holding motion for intervention timely under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because case was far from final disposition, no scheduling order had been issued, no trial date set, and no cut-off date for motions set

Holding in May of 1995 that "the Criminal Case should be completed by the end of this year, which would not unreasonably prolong this case"

Holding that a district court did not err by allowing a party to supplement its brief and present evidence of an affirmative defense because the opposing party "had notice of the defense ... and, therefore, suffered no prejudice from failure to comply with Rule 8(c)"

Holding that although "the Constitution . . . does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings . . . a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings"

Holding that allowing civil discovery during a criminal investigation would create "an open invitation to [parties] under criminal investigation to subvert the civil rules into a device for obtaining pre-trial discovery against the Government in criminal proceedings"

Finding that the defendant's argument that the Government's request for a stay is inconsistent with the institution of parallel proceedings "overlooks the important purpose of the SEC to protect the integrity of the public markets and ensure truthful corporate disclosures"

Recognizing lower court's appointment of receiver "who was granted broad powers to, inter alia, issue subpoenas, marshal [corporate] assets, liquidate those assets, and reinvest the proceeds in Treasury instruments."

Holding that the government "had a discernible interest in intervening in order to prevent discovery in the civil case from being used to circumvent the more limited scope of discovery in the criminal matter"

Finding pre-indictment stay appropriate where both the civil and criminal charges arose under ERISA such that the criminal investigation was likely to vindicate the same public interest as the civil suit

Granting the right of intervention to qualifying persons "unless existing parties adequately represent" them

Defining "serious harm" as that which would compel a "reasonable person" to perform or continue performing labor to avoid incurring such harm

Authorizing lawsuits against those who "benefit ... from participation in a [trafficking] venture"