Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01510/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01510-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States Securities and Exchange

Commission , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maynard L. Jenkins, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1510-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the United States’ Motion to Intervene and Stay Certain

Depositions Pending Criminal Disposition (Doc. 90) simultaneously filed in United States

v. Jenkins, Case No. CV-09-1510-PHX-GMS and its companion motion filed in United

States v. Watson, Case No. CV-09-443-PHX-GMS to stay certain depositions pending

criminal disposition (Doc. 172). The motions are denied as further set forth below. 

As this Court previously observed in Watson, “to the extent that the Defendants’

discovery requests simply result in the happenstance that in defending themselves against

serious civil charges that another government agency has chosen to file against them they

obtain certain ordinary discovery that will also be helpful in defense of their criminal case,

there is no cognizable harm to the government in providing such discovery beyond its desire

to maintain a tactical advantage, United States v. Watson, 2:09-CV-00443-GMS (Doc. 47)

(June 1, 2009), quoting SEC v. Oakford Corp., 181 F.R.D. 269, 272-73 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); see

Case 2:09-cv-01510-RJB Document 113 Filed 01/21/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

also United States v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth. 607 F. Supp.2d 391, 394 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)

(holding that “the only ‘prejudice’ the Court can discern is that allowing the [civil

proceeding] to go forward will result in the criminal defendants having more information

than they otherwise would be entitled to at this stage under the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. This loss of the government’s usual tactical advantage is insufficient to justify

enjoining the [civil proceeding].” 

The Court has not changed its mind in the last twenty months. It is true that the

government’s request is more narrowly tailored in this motion. But even so, it does not

present any particular prejudice other than its loss of strategic advantage. Mr. Jenkins is not

a defendant in any criminal case, there is little reason his preparation should be stayed so the

United States can preserve its strategic advantage at his expense. Further, the preservation

of such an advantage is an insufficient reason to permit Mr. Watson to prepare his defense

in the civil proceeding brought by the SEC. Because the Court perceives no reason for the

instant stay request other than for the government to preserve a tactical advantage in its

criminal case. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion to Intervene without prejudice

(Doc. 90).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Motion to Stay Certain Depositions

Pending Criminal Disposition (Doc. 90).

DATED this 21st day of January, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01510-RJB Document 113 Filed 01/21/11 Page 2 of 2