1 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

FRED L. SEEMAN, Individually, and as 

Administrator of the Estate of, HELENE K. 

SEEMAN, and CURTIS JAY ZUKER 

SEEMAN 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AMY LOCANE and MARK C. 

BOVENIZER, CARLOS SAGEBIEN, and 

RACHEL SAGEBIEN, 

 Defendants. 

 

 

 Civ. No. 10-6597 

 

 OPINION 

 

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

INTRODUCTION 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Fred L. Seeman’s and Curtis Jay Zuker Seeman’s 

Motion to appeal Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman’s Order to stay formal discovery as to 

Defendant Amy Locane. (ECF No. 114). Defendants Amy Locane and Mark C. Bovenizer 

oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 115). The Court has decided the Motion after considering the 

parties’ written submissions and without oral argument pursuant to Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For 

the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied. 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants Amy Locane and Mark C. Bovenizer on 

December 20, 2010. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs alleged the following: On June 27, 2010, Ms. 

Locane was intoxicated at a social event. (Id. at ¶¶ 40, 58). Ms. Locane’s husband, Mark. C. 

Bovenizer, witnessed her intoxication, but nevertheless allowed her to drive away in his car. (Id. 

at ¶¶ 58-60). Ms. Locane drove erratically, hitting mailboxes, speeding, and eventually hitting 

Case 3:10-cv-06597-AET-LHG Document 117 Filed 10/01/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 904
2 

Plaintiffs’ car. (Id. at ¶¶ 72-78). Mr. and Mrs. Seeman were both seriously injured, and Mrs. 

Seeman died from her injuries. (Id. at ¶¶ 78, 83). 

On January 31, 2011, this Court ordered Plaintiffs’ case be stayed pending the outcome 

of criminal charges against Ms. Locane. (ECF No. 17). On November 27, 2012, Ms. Locane 

was convicted for causing Mrs. Seeman’s death and Mr. Seeman’s injuries. (ECF. No. 27). This 

Court lifted the stay on Plaintiffs’ case on December 19, 2012. (ECF No. 33). Plaintiffs 

subsequently sought to depose Ms. Locane. (ECF No. 100). However, Ms. Locane had 

appealed her criminal conviction, and therefore requested that her deposition be delayed until the 

resolution of her appeal, so as not to compromise her Fifth Amendment rights. (Id.). In a 

conference call with the parties on August 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Goodman noted that Ms. 

Locane faced the possibility of a retrial. (ECF No. 114-3 at 7). Magistrate Judge Goodman 

subsequently ordered formal discovery as to Amy Locane stayed until further Order of the Court. 

(ECF No. 112). Magistrate Judge Goodman ordered the parties to continue with limited 

discovery that would not interfere with Ms. Locane’s Fifth Amendment rights. (Id.). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Courts have the discretion to stay cases in the interests of justice. Walsh Securities, Inc. 

v. Cristo Property Management, Ltd. 7 F.Supp.2d 523, 526 (D.N.J. 1998) (citing United States v. 

Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970)). The factors a court will consider in granting a stay in a civil 

case are: 

1) the extent to which the issues in the criminal and civil cases overlap; 2) the status 

of the case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; 3) the plaintiff's 

interest in proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiff 

caused by a delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on defendants; 5) the 

interests of the court; and 6) the public interest. 

Id. at 527. The first factor is considered the most important. Id.; Colombo v. Bd. of Educ. for the 

Clifton Sch. Dist., 11-cv-0785, 2011 WL 5416058, at *3 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 2011). 

Case 3:10-cv-06597-AET-LHG Document 117 Filed 10/01/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 905
3 

In considering an appeal of a nondispositive order by a magistrate judge, a reviewing 

court will modify or vacate an order only if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 72(a); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c). A magistrate judge’s finding is clearly erroneous when, after 

considering the entirety of the evidence, the reviewing court is “left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. Employers Mut. Liab. 

Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 63, 65 (D.N.J. 1990). A ruling is contrary to law if the magistrate judge has 

misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law. Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 32 F.Supp.2d 

162, 164 (D.N.J. 1998). The burden of showing that a ruling is “clearly erroneous or contrary to 

law rests with the party filing the appeal.” Marks v. Struble, 347 F.Supp.2d 136, 149 (D.N.J. 

2004). 

ANALYSIS 

 Examining the six Walsh factors, the first and most important factor, the extent to which 

the issues overlap, weighs strongly in favor of staying formal discovery as to Ms. Locane. The 

criminal and civil cases deal with the exact same subject matter, that is, Ms. Locane’s intoxicated 

driving leading to Mr. Seeman’s serious injuries and Mrs. Seeman’s death. (ECF Nos. 1, 27). 

The second Walsh factor, the status of the criminal case, also favors a stay. There is no doubt 

about whether Ms. Locane will be indicted – she has been convicted, and may face a retrial. 

(ECF No. 114-3 at 7). The third Walsh factor, concerning potential prejudice to Plaintiffs and 

their interest in proceeding expeditiously, is a closer matter. Plaintiffs’ original complaint was 

filed almost five years ago, and their case was previously stayed during Ms. Locane’s criminal 

proceedings. (ECF Nos. 1, 17). The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ desire to not wait out 

another potentially lengthy stay. However, Plaintiffs have not said how the delay will prejudice 

their case. Discovery has been ongoing, and may continue except for formal discovery as to Ms. 

Locane. (ECF No. 112). 

Case 3:10-cv-06597-AET-LHG Document 117 Filed 10/01/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 906
4 

 The fourth Walsh factor, concerning the Defendant’s interests, weighs in favor of a stay. 

Plaintiffs acknowledge that Ms. Locane retains her Fifth Amendment rights until her appellate 

remedies are exhausted. (ECF No. 114, Pls.’ Br. at 9). As Magistrate Judge Goodman noted on 

a conference call with the parties, without a stay, Ms. Locane would either need to waive her 

Fifth Amendment rights in order to fully defend herself in the civil action, or remain silent and 

sabotage her chances of prevailing against Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 114-3 at 8). Courts may force 

defendants into this choice, but they also may choose to stay civil cases to avoid this scenario. 

Walsh, 7 F.Supp.2d at 528 (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-19 (1976)). The fifth 

and sixth Walsh factors, regarding the public interest and the interest of the courts, do not weigh 

heavily in either direction. Both the public and the courts have an interest in civil cases reaching 

speedy resolutions, however, both also must be wary of compromising constitutional rights for 

the sake of expediency. 

 Considering these factors, it is apparent that Magistrate Judge Goodman’s order was not 

“clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); L. Civ. R. 72.1(c). 

CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied. An appropriate order will 

follow. 

 /s/ Anne E. Thompson 

 ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J. 

Case 3:10-cv-06597-AET-LHG Document 117 Filed 10/01/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 907