Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. et al

Filing 121

ORDER - Pamela Scott's Second Motion Asking the Court to Lift the Stay in Her Civil Case (Case No. 8:10CV3191, filing 106) is denied. Member Cases: 4:10-cv-03211-LSC-FG3, 4:10-cv-03212-LSC-FG3, 8:10-cv-03191-LSC-FG3. Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IGOR KOZLOV,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE
GROCERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ANDREI TCHIKOBAVA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE
GROCERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
PAMELA SCOTT, Personal
Representative of the Estate of Michael
E. Scott, Deceased,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IGOR KOZLOV, ALBATROSS
EXPRESS, LLC and UNICK, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:10-cv-03211
ORDER

4:10-cv-03212
ORDER

8:10-cv-03191
ORDER

This matter is before the court on Pamela Scott’s (“Scott”) Second Motion Asking the
Court to Lift the Stay in Her Civil Case. (Case No. 8:10CV3191, filing 106.) For the
reasons set forth below, Scott’s motion will be denied.

BACKGROUND
These consolidated civil cases arise out of a motor-vehicle accident that occurred on
August 9, 2010, in Seward County, Nebraska. Subsequent to the initiation of this litigation,
the Seward County Attorney filed a criminal complaint against Igor Kozlov (“Kozlov”) as
a result of his involvement in the accident. On August 2, 2011, this court ordered that this
litigation be stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal proceeding. The court
reasoned that, absent a stay, Kozlov could potentially face a conflict between asserting his
Fifth Amendment rights and damaging his civil defense. (Case No. 4:10CV3211, filing 73;
Case No. 4:10CV3212, filing 76; Case No. 8:10CV3191, filing 66.)
On December 12, 2011, Scott filed a motion to lift the stay (Case No. 8:10CV3191,
filing 78). Scott’s motion was granted and discovery was allowed to proceed. The court did,
however, bar testimonial evidence sought from Kozlov, as well as any other discovery that
Kozlov demonstrates may unduly prejudice him. (Case No. 8:10CV3191, filing 88.)
Scott has now filed a second motion requesting that the stay be lifted in its entirety.
Scott argues that Kozlov is conducting discovery in both his criminal case and his civil case
on the liability issues in his civil case while using the stay to prevent Scott from conducting
similar discovery. In opposition to Scott’s motion, Kozlov asserts that the stay should remain
in place because (1) nothing has changed since the time the court issued its last order
regarding the matter and (2) Kozlov’s criminal trial is scheduled to begin in October, 2012,
and discovery concerning other issues could take place until the trial concludes.
ANALYSIS
The court finds that its previous order precluding testimonial evidence from Kozlov
and other discovery prejudicial to him should remain in place. With the October trial date
approaching, the court believes that little will be gained from allowing full discovery at this
time. The parties can seemingly complete other areas of discovery until the criminal trial is
concluded. Also, importantly, on July 25, 2012, Scott filed an unopposed motion to file an
amended complaint, which was granted. (Filing 115.) Scott filed an amended complaint on
2

July 26, 2012, which names additional parties. (Filing 116.) Given the introduction of
additional parties, the fact that the criminal trial will begin in a couple months and, as
previously found, the interest of safeguarding Kozlov’s Fifth Amendment rights, Scott’s
motion will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Pamela Scott’s Second Motion Asking the Court to Lift the
Stay in Her Civil Case (Case No. 8:10CV3191, filing 106) is denied.
DATED August 3, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
S/ F.A. Gossett
United States Magistrate Judge

3