1:23-cv-09440
S.D.N.Y.Dec 6, 2024Background
- This case arises from a civil action involving Bradberry (plaintiff) and multiple defendants, including The Jeffries Family Office (TJFO), in the Southern District of New York.
- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recently unsealed a criminal indictment against two individual defendants, Jeffries and Smith, who are also named in this civil matter.
- On October 29, 2024, the court entered a stay of the civil action under 18 U.S.C. § 1595(b) because of the pending criminal proceedings.
- After the stay was ordered, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that TJFO be compelled to produce certain Non-Disclosure Agreements despite the stay.
- Plaintiff did not confer with opposing counsel before filing, as required by the court's rules.
- The court denied Plaintiff’s motion and ordered that the request for document production not be considered while the stay remains in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can compel TJFO to produce documents despite the stay | Requests an order to compel TJFO to produce NDAs, arguing time sensitivity or that TJFO’s status in the criminal case is immaterial | Argues the stay applies to all claims/parties, production cannot proceed, and no conferral occurred | Denied Plaintiff’s request; the mandatory stay blocks all discovery, including requests involving TJFO |
| Whether the stay under § 1595(b) applies to TJFO | TJFO is not a criminal defendant, so shouldn't be stayed | The stay applies to all claims/defendants regardless | The stay is comprehensive per statutory mandate |
| Procedure for lifting the stay | Suggests the court could temporarily lift stay for limited discovery | Only proper procedure is motion after resolution of criminal proceeding | Stay cannot be lifted except by specific post-criminal motion |
| Compliance with court’s individual procedures | Did not confer before motion | Plaintiff failed to follow required procedure | Plaintiff’s motion denied for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Lunkes v. Yannai, 882 F. Supp. 2d 545 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (stay under 18 U.S.C. § 1595 applies to all defendants and all claims, even if some are not at issue in the criminal proceeding)