United States of America v. $36,083.22 in United States Currency et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Stay and 15 Second Motion to Stay, and these proceedings are STAYED for 6 months; granting 16 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 10/20/11. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:11cv145
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
$36,083.22 IN UNITED STATES
)
CURRENCY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the “Motion to Stay” [#7] , “Second Motion to
Stay” [# 15], and a motion to seal [#16], all filed by the United States. The
Government moves pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(g) to stay this civil forfeiture
proceeding because the civil proceedings will interfere with a related criminal
investigation. Claimants’ oppose staying these proceedings. The Court GRANTS
the “Motion to Stay” [#7] and the “Second Motion to Stay”[# 15] and the motion
to seal [#16].
I.

Analysis

Section 981(g) provides that upon the filing of a motion by the
Government, the Court shall stay a 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). The statute further defines what constitutes a related
criminal case or related criminal investigation:
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 . . . 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)(4); see also United States v. Approximately $345,762.38,
No. 3:09cv385, 2009 WL 3230608 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 2009) (Keesler, Mag.
J.).
Upon a review of the record in this case, including the Affidavit submitted
by the Government in support of its “Motion to Stay” [#7] and its “Second Motion
to Stay” [#15], the Courts finds that a related criminal investigation is currently
ongoing that involves similar facts, witnesses, and circumstances to this civil
forfeiture proceeding. Accordingly, a stay of these proceedings is warranted
pursuant to Section 981(g) because civil discovery will adversely affect the
Government’s ability to conduct this related criminal investigation. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 981(g)(1). The Court, therefore, GRANTS the “Motion to Stay” [#7] and the
“Second Motion to Stay” [# 15] and STAYS these proceedings for six months.
After the expiration of six months, the stay shall automatically dissolve unless the
Government can show by motion (accompanied by a status report) reasons why the

stay should not be lifted.
II.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the “Motion to Stay” [#7] and the “Second Motion to
Stay” [# 15]. The Court STAYS these proceedings for six months. After the
expiration of six months, the stay shall automatically dissolve unless the
Government can show by motion (accompanied by a status report) reasons why the
stay should not be lifted.
The Court also grants the motion to seal [#16] and DIRECTS the Clerk to
re-docket the Exhibits [# 9 & # 17], which the Government filed as sealed
documents, as ex parte filings with access restricted to the Government and the
Court. The Court INSTRUCTS the Government that in future proceedings, it
should file any evidence where the disclosure of such evidence may adversely
affect an ongoing criminal investigation or pending criminal trial as an ex parte
filing, rather than a sealed document. Filing the evidence ex parte, will alleviate
the need to file a corresponding motion to seal.

Signed: October 20, 2011