Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_06-cv-01102/USCOURTS-alnd-5_06-cv-01102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 690
Nature of Suit: Other Forfeiture and Penalty Suits
Cause of Action: 18:0981 Civil Forfeiture

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 2:06-CV-1102-VEH

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the court on the United States of America’s

(hereinafter “Government”) Motion to Stay (doc. 15). This motion is opposed, has

been briefed, and was the subject of a hearing before the undersigned on August 28,

2006. For the reasons stated herein, the Government’s Motion to Stay is due to be

GRANTED.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 981(g) provides the basis for a stay of a civil forfeiture

proceeding as a result of a related criminal proceeding. In relevant part, § 981(g)

states as follows:

(1) Upon the motion of the United States, the court shall stay the civil

forfeiture proceeding if the court determines that civil discovery will

adversely affect the ability of the Government to conduct a related

FILED

 2006 Aug-28 PM 04:30

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:06-cv-01102-IPJ Document 17 Filed 08/28/06 Page 1 of 4
2

criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case....

(3) With respect to the impact of civil discovery described in paragraphs

(1) and (2), the court may determine that a stay is unnecessary if a

protective order limiting discovery would protect the interest of one

party without unfairly limiting the ability of the opposing party to pursue

the civil case. In no case, however, shall the court impose a protective

order as an alternative to a stay if the effect of such protective order

would be to allow one party to pursue discovery while the other party is

substantially unable to do so.

(4) In this subsection, the terms "related criminal case" and "related

criminal investigation" mean an actual prosecution or investigation in

progress at the time at which the request for the stay, or any subsequent

motion to lift the stay is made. In determining whether a criminal case

or investigation is "related" to a civil forfeiture proceeding, the court

shall consider the degree of similarity between the parties, witnesses,

facts, and circumstances involved in the two proceedings, without

requiring an identity with respect to any one or more factors.

18 U.S.C. § 981(g) is part of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000

("CAFRA"), which became effective on August 23, 2000. The new amendments to

the civil forfeiture law contained in CAFRA provide for a stay whenever a court

determines that civil discovery will adversely affect the ability of the United States

to investigate or prosecute a related criminal case. See United States v. All Funds

Deposited in Account No. 200008524845, 162 F.Supp.2d 1325, 1329 (D. Wyo. 2001).

It also eliminates the previous requirement allowing a stay only after the filing of a

criminal information or indictment. See id.

Pursuant to the statute, it is up to the court to determine whether civil discovery

Case 5:06-cv-01102-IPJ Document 17 Filed 08/28/06 Page 2 of 4
3

will affect the criminal investigation. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1). As part of this

determination, the government must make an actual showing regarding the

anticipated adverse affect that civil discovery will have on the criminal investigation.

See United States v. All Funds ($357,311.68) Contained in Northern Trust Bank of

Florida Account Number 7240001868, 2004 WL 1834589, *2 (N.D. Tx. Aug. 10,

2004). Additionally, in determining the relatedness of the civil and criminal cases,

neither the parties nor the facts in the civil and criminal case need to be identical for

the two cases to be considered related. See All Funds Deposited, 162 F.Supp.2d at

1329-30. The Court needs to consider the degree of similarity between the witnesses,

parties, facts, and circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 981(G)(4).

The court finds that the Government has made a sufficient showing to warrant

a stay of the instant proceeding. First, the criminal investigation is related to the

instant action. As detailed in the ex parte declarations of Marcus W. Mills, Special

Agent with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of Inspector

General (NASA-OIG), submitted along with and supplemental to the Government’s

Motion to Stay, the investigation and the instant action have common facts,

violations, and parties. Second, the Government has also shown that civil discovery

will have an anticipated adverse effect on the criminal investigation. As evidenced

by the sealed declarations of Marcus W. Mills submitted by the Government, the

Case 5:06-cv-01102-IPJ Document 17 Filed 08/28/06 Page 3 of 4
4

court finds that civil discovery in this case would jeopardize the ongoing criminal

investigation against Alex Nooredin Latifi and AXION Corporation. Further, the

court finds that a protective order limiting the scope of discoverywould be ineffective

in this case.

Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Stay is hereby GRANTED. This

action is STAYED pending a further Order by this court. The Government shall file

a status report on the last business day of December, 2006, and on the last business

day of each quarter thereafter, advising the court whether the Government maintains

that a stay is still warranted. Further, the Government shall notify the court

immediately upon completion of the ongoing criminal investigation, as it is

articulated in the Government’s ex parte submissions, against Alex Nooredin Latifi

and AXION Corporation.

DONE and ORDERED this 28 day of August, 2006. th

 

 VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01102-IPJ Document 17 Filed 08/28/06 Page 4 of 4