16 Cited authorities

Baxter v. Palmigiano
425 U.S. 308 (1976) Cited 2,600 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party’s refusal to testify in response to probative evidence offered against it in a civil action permits an adverse inference
Berger v. United States
295 U.S. 78 (1935) Cited 4,150 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding there was no prejudice when four defendants were tried for a single conspiracy and two separate conspiracies were proven
Securities Exch. Com'n v. Dresser Indus
628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980) Cited 619 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
Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro
889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989) Cited 311 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
United States v. 6600 North Mesa
903 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1990) Cited 161 times
Concluding “that this matter is one of those extraordinary cases in which mandamus may be considered” in part because the district court, in a one sentence opinion, made no findings and cited no law
Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.
825 F. Supp. 1153 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) Cited 77 times
Staying civil case in light of pending criminal case; observing, "due to the overlapping issues in the criminal and civil trials, the criminal justice system will help safeguard the evidence"
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"
Arden Way Associates v. Boesky
660 F. Supp. 1494 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) Cited 56 times
Finding a stay imprudent where "there are so many claimants to the potentially limited funds for the satisfaction of potential damages"
Hicks v. City of New York
CV 02-5215 (ADS) (ETB) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 21, 2003) Cited 30 times
CV 02-5215 (ADS) (ETB) June 21, 2003 THE COCHRAN FIRM, Derek S. Sells, Esq., New York, NY, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs MICHAEL A. CARDOZO, CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Caryn A. Rosencrantz, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, Attorney for the Defendant City of New York SUFFOLK COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Richard T. Dunne, Assistant County Attorney, Hauppauge, NY, Attorneys for the Defendant County of Suffolk JAMES J. O'ROURKE ASSOCIATES, James J. O'Rourke, Esq., Hauppauge
In re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation
Master File 02 Civ. 3288 (DLC), Master File 02 Civ. 4816 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002) Cited 22 times
Stating the factors comprising the six-part test and collecting cases where this six-part test was also used
Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Cited 94,500 times 650 Legal Analyses
Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Stephanou et al

16 Cited authorities

Holding that a party’s refusal to testify in response to probative evidence offered against it in a civil action permits an adverse inference

Holding there was no prejudice when four defendants were tried for a single conspiracy and two separate conspiracies were proven

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 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

Concluding “that this matter is one of those extraordinary cases in which mandamus may be considered” in part because the district court, in a one sentence opinion, made no findings and cited no law

Staying civil case in light of pending criminal case; observing, "due to the overlapping issues in the criminal and civil trials, the criminal justice system will help safeguard the evidence"

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 a stay imprudent where "there are so many claimants to the potentially limited funds for the satisfaction of potential damages"

Stating the factors comprising the six-part test and collecting cases where this six-part test was also used

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37