DOJ-OGR-00019450.jpg

Case Ce2@-G0-00484-DGtUDER SDoeHékG, PREG DL21 H2GeHayfedé of 13 Plumbers and Pipefitters Nat. Pension Fund, 886 F. Supp. at 1139. The party seeking the stay “bears the burden of establishing its need,” Louis Vuitton Malletier, 676 F.3d at 97 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and this burden may be met where, on balance, the relevant factors suggest that proceeding with the civil action will likely result in undue prejudice to the defendant, see id. (noting that “absent a showing of undue prejudice . . . there is no reason why [a] plaintiff should be delayed in its efforts to diligently proceed to sustain its claim” (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted)). B. The Relevant Factors Weigh in Favor of Granting a Stay of This Action. In this instance, as discussed below, the relevant factors support Maxell’s application for a stay. 1. Overlap Between the Civil and Criminal Cases “The strongest case for granting a stay is where a party under criminal indictment is required to defend a civil proceeding involving the same matter.” Volmar Distributors, 152 F.R.D. at 39 (emphasis added) (citations omitted); accord In re Worldcom, 2002 WL 31729501, at *5. Denying a stay where there is significant factual overlap between the civil and criminal cases may “undermine a defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination . . . expand the rights of criminal discovery beyond the limits of Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, expose the basis of the defense to the prosecution in advance of trial, or otherwise prejudice the case.” Volmar Distributors, 152 F.R.D. at 39 (citations omitted); see also Johnson v. New York City Police Dep’t, No. 01cv6570 (RCC) (JCF), 2003 WL 21664882, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2003). As a threshold matter, this Court finds that, in this instance, there is significant factual overlap between this civil case and the pending criminal case. For example, as Maxwell points DOJ-OGR-00019450