17 Cited authorities

United States v. Kordel
397 U.S. 1 (1970) Cited 764 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding the United States Food and Drug Administration's routine investigation was not done solely to obtain evidence supporting criminal charges
Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision
45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 462 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that any burden on the defendant was "far outweighed by the public interest in a speedy resolution of the case"
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
Mediterranean Enters., Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp.
708 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 503 times
Holding that it is within the discretion of a district court to enter a stay, regardless whether the parallel proceeding is "judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character" (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979))
Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro
889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 314 times
Holding that any burden on Fifth Amendment privilege was negligible where defendant's partial deposition provided the basis of support for plaintiff's summary judgment motion and nothing prevented defendant from responding to plaintiff's motion with information that did not tend to incriminate him
Walsh Securities v. Cristo Propery Management
7 F. Supp. 2d 523 (D.N.J. 1998) Cited 162 times
Finding a stay of discovery was appropriate where the “Government [] expressed concern that interrogatory and deposition discovery in this matter could harm its investigation by disclosing testimony of potential government witnesses in the criminal action”
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"
Chao v. Fleming
498 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (W.D. Mich. 2007) Cited 87 times
In Chao, the court granted a stay even though the defendant had not yet been indicted because the AUSA stated that an indictment was but "an eventuality" and the criminal charges were coextensive with the ones in the civil case.
Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello
218 F.R.D. 72 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) Cited 45 times
Noting government's ability to restrict discovery in criminal cases would be circumvented by defendant's use of civil discovery
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
Section 1961 - Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1961 Cited 14,952 times 72 Legal Analyses
Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include
Section 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
18 U.S.C. § 1343 Cited 11,950 times 170 Legal Analyses
Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"

eBay Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc. et al

17 Cited authorities

Holding the United States Food and Drug Administration's routine investigation was not done solely to obtain evidence supporting criminal charges

Holding that any burden on the defendant was "far outweighed by the public interest in a speedy resolution of the case"

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 that it is within the discretion of a district court to enter a stay, regardless whether the parallel proceeding is "judicial, administrative, or arbitral in character" (quoting Leyva v. Certified Grocers, 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979))

Holding that any burden on Fifth Amendment privilege was negligible where defendant's partial deposition provided the basis of support for plaintiff's summary judgment motion and nothing prevented defendant from responding to plaintiff's motion with information that did not tend to incriminate him

Finding a stay of discovery was appropriate where the “Government [] expressed concern that interrogatory and deposition discovery in this matter could harm its investigation by disclosing testimony of potential government witnesses in the criminal action”

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"

In Chao, the court granted a stay even though the defendant had not yet been indicted because the AUSA stated that an indictment was but "an eventuality" and the criminal charges were coextensive with the ones in the civil case.

Noting government's ability to restrict discovery in criminal cases would be circumvented by defendant's use of civil discovery

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

Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

Barring fraudulent schemes "for obtaining money or property"