UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED

THIRTY NINE DOLLARS AND NINETY

ONE CENTS IN U.S. CURRENCY

($11,139.91) FROM COMERICA BANK

ACCOUNT #XXXX-XXXXXX3967, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

Case No. 08-14611

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on March 4, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On October 30, 2008, the Government filed the present civil forfeiture proceeding

against three Comerica bank accounts containing nearly $40,000 in total. Presently before

the Court is the Government’s motion for the entry of an order staying the proceeding. The

motion has been fully briefed and the Court dispensed with oral argument pursuant to Eastern

District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(e)(2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants

the motion.

I. Background

2:08-cv-14611-PJD-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 74
2

The civil forfeiture complaint in this action alleges that the Defendant bank accounts

are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(A) and (C) as proceeds of health

care fraud, money laundering, or a combination thereof. According to the Government, the

funds in the Defendant accounts constitute proceeds from Claimant Dr. Jose J. CastroRamirez’s participation in a conspiracy to defraud Medicare by submitting nearly $8 million

worth of fictitious claims.

On January 27, 2009, the Government filed the present motion requesting a stay of this

civil forfeiture proceeding. The Government contends that a stay is necessary to prevent civil

discovery from adversely affecting its ability to conduct a related criminal investigation. See

18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1). The Government filed a sealed affidavit to provide the factual support

for its motion. See id. § 981(g)(5). The Claimants, Dr. Jose J. Castro-Ramirez, Magda

Solano Rodriguez, and Homecare Doctors, P.C., oppose the stay on grounds that the

Government has failed to meet its burden of identifying the potential adverse effects of civil

discovery on a related criminal proceeding. In the alternative the Claimants request that the

Court consider a protective order in lieu of a stay. See id. § 981(g)(3).

II. Analysis

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) provides that “[u]pon 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 criminal investigation or the prosecution of a related criminal case.” 18 U.S.C. §

981(g)(1). Another CAFRA provision allows the Government to “submit evidence ex parte”

in supporting a motion for a stay “in order to avoid disclosing any matter that may adversely

2:08-cv-14611-PJD-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 75
3

affect an ongoing criminal investigation or pending criminal trial.” Id. § 981(g)(5). In

considering such motions, however, “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.” Id. § 981(g)(3).

In application CAFRA requires that the Government “make an actual showing that civil

discovery will adversely affect the investigation or prosecution of a related criminal case.”

United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Suntrust Account Number XXXXXXXXX8359, 456

F. Supp. 2d 64, 65 (D.D.C. 2006). Whether a criminal investigation is “related” to the civil

forfeiture proceeding depends on “the degree of similarity between the parties, witnesses,

facts, and circumstances involved in the two proceedings . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(4).

Ultimately, though, “neither the parties nor the facts in the civil and criminal case need to be

identical for the two cases to be considered related.” United States v. GAF Financial Servs.,

Inc., 335 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1373 (S.D. Fla. 2004).

The Court has reviewed the Government’s sealed affidavit and concludes that the

Government has made a sufficient showing that the pending civil forfeiture is related to an

ongoing criminal investigation regarding health care fraud. Civil discovery would

compromise prospective witnesses and other evidence currently being collected by the

Government in preparation for criminal prosecutions in connection with the underlying facts

of this case. Furthermore, the Court finds that a protective order would be insufficient and

is therefore inappropriate.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Government’s motion for stay is GRANTED.

2:08-cv-14611-PJD-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 76
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is STAYED until additional order of

the court.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Tauras N. Ziedas, AUSA

Allen M. Wolf, Esq.

2:08-cv-14611-PJD-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 03/04/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 77