UN I TE ST AT ES I STR I CT OU RT SOUTHERN DI STRI CT OF ORI DA NO CI V-MARRA/J OHNSON ANE DO NO EFF REY EPSTEI De fe nd a nt ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TAY DE filed June The motion is now fully briefe and is ripe or re view The Court Def endant Jeffre Epstein efe ndant seeks a stay of this civil action under a fede ral I at a ny time that a ca use of a ction for ecove ry of compe nsation for pe nd ing wh ic a ri se ut he sa me oc ur re nc a nd in hic th hil is the victim the civil action shall be stay ed until the end of a ll phases of the pr oc din is ro hib ite As us in thi su bs tio a ri min a a tio is U.S.C I his moti on Def endant ites a state ase Fl or ida ps te in No Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of As Def endant ecog nizes the state court ase as inally adjudicate and thus no longe pending as of June See DE De fe nd a nt a tte mpt to a rg ue tha th fa th a ra nd jur su bp oe na a re sti ll outstanding and not withdrawn and that the rand jury will not be dismi ssed until Defe ndant omp le te is bli a tio ns un de he sta te ple a a re me nt a ns tha a ri min a a tio is pending ef Reply De fenda nt misunderstands the purpose of a rand jury A rand jury as lackstone rites is composed of itiz ens who inquire upon their oa ths whether the re be suff icient ca use to ca ll upon the party to answer the harg of riminal activity Beav ers Henk el U.S quoting Wil liam Blac kstone Commentaries The rand jury sole purpose is to inqui re into whe ther ther is probable cause to bring an individual befor a tribunal to dete rmine his uilt or innocence of an a lleg ed cr ime Id Th ra nd jur is imp ly an investig ative body See Alred F.3d Cir A riminal th a tio is ot i ns tig a te the a lli ng of a ra nd jur a us a ra nd jur is on ve ne to deter mine whether a cr ime has bee committed and whethe cr iminal procee dings should be ins tit ute a a ins any person Ca lan dr a A a tio is commence ag ainst a per son after the rand jury actua lly finds probable cause to make an ind ivi du a a ns we pe if ic ha rg a nd re nd rs a bil of ind ic tme nt a a ins th a in div idu a nti a ra nd jur inv sti a tio is omp le te a nd the re ha a de te rm ina tio a la wf ul a uth or ity that probable cause exis ts there an be no riminal action CF la Cir Ct and a eder al ca se In re Gr an ur No FGJ la th a a ri se ou of the sa me oc ur re nc a nd a re pe nd ing a nd thu qu ir a sta of thi civil case The fe dera ca se a ccor ding to De fenda nt involves a de fer red prosec ution a re me nt he re by the A tto rn a re to su sp nd its inv sti a tio fe nd a nt hil re ta ini ng the ri ht a tiv a te the ra nd jur fe nd a nt sse nti a lly re a so ns a A ou ld bring criminal cha rg es ag ainst Defe ndant that a riminal action is pending The Court rejec ts this definiti on of a pending criminal ac tion When interpreting the text of a statute the Court beg ins with the plain meaning of the text In re He drick Cir I he pla in a nin of a sta tut is th clea the Court should not deviate rom that interpre tation Id Pending is de fined a re maining undecide and awa iting dec ision Blac ks aw Dic tionary ed ikewise a th Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of I fac Congre ss made this intent clear by stating tha this broader de finition of a cr iminal action applied only in this subsection ac tion is defined a a riminal judicial proce eding Id Be cause the U.S Attorney has not filed an indictment or a information ag ainst Defe ndant the Court fa ils to see how there is an undecide judicial proce eding in fede ral ourt ag ainst Defe ndant Def endant a rg ues that this statute should be rea to include the def inition of criminal action use in U.S.C whic rea ds as follows I this subsection a cr iminal action inc ludes investiga tion and prosec ution and is pending until final adjudication in the trial court Def endant a rg ues that Cong ress spec ifically intended that the ter criminal ac tion wo uld be a pp lie xtre me ly br oa dly un de Co ng re ss too a ins to ns ur tha ou rt would ive it the broade st possibl construc tion and def ined riminal action a including inv sti a tor sta Re ply fe nd a nts a rg ue tha th Cou rt sh ou ld or ro his definition The Court disag ree The Court believe that Congr ess?s inclusion of this broade definition under vinces Cong ressional intent to depa rt from the nor mal meaning of the te rm ri min a a tio Th is a dd iti on to he te xt sug sts tha Co ng re ss no ws the pla in meaning of the ter cr iminal action and tha Congre ss decided unde that the de fi nit ion of ri min a a tio sh ou ld br oa de I on tr a st Con re ss ou ld have ma de such a addition to had it intended the mandator stay provision to apply to pre-indictment investiga tions but i did not I other wor ds by not broade ning the definition of riminal action Cong ress intende that the term should only have its ordinar meaning that an indictment or information has be en filed na ming a specific defe ndant I nstead it seems lear that Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Congr ess intended that these two statutory provisions should each ha ve a dif fer ent scope De fe nd a nt a rg ume nt ta tut or on str uc tio a ils The sing le ca se cited by Def endant in support of his motion is not on poi nt I Doe Fr an is No WC N.D la Fe the stay was enter ed bec ause riminal char es had be en filed a ainst the defe ndant in a state ourt sever al months earlier i.e the de fenda nts had bee indicted by the state a ttorney See Me mor a nd um i Support of Motion to tay Procee dings Pending Outcome of Parallel Criminal Procee dings a Do ra nc is 3CV CR/WCS la he Cou rt a re ith Def endant that a stay under is mandatory when a criminal ac tion is pending the Court simply disag ree that the de fer red prosec ution ag ree ment constitutes a pe nding riminal action The Court also does not be lieve a disc retionar stay is warr anted De fenda nt did not seek this relief in his motion i ncluding such a equest in the re ply brief is inappr opriate urther the Court sees no re ason to delay this li tiga tion for the next thirty three months After a ll Defe ndant is in control of his own destiny it is up him and him alone hether the plea a ree ment rea ched ith the State of Florida is breac hed I De fenda nt does not brea ch the a ree ment then he should have no conce rns re arding his Fifth Amendment ight a ainst self-incr imination The fa th a th A tto rn the a nf or me nt ff ic ia ls ma ob je to so me dis ov ry in these ivil cases is not in an of itself a eason to stay the civil action Any such issues shall be resolved a they arise in the ourse of this li tiga tion Ac or din ly it is OR DE RE A ND AD JU DG ED a oll ow De fe nd a nt Mo tio to Sta is DE NI ED De fe nd a nt Mo tio or He a ri ng is DE NI ED AS OOT Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of Pla int if Mo tio or a xten sio ime to ile Re sp on se is GR ANTED NUNC RO TUNC DO NE AN RD ER ED i a a a a a a Florida this day of Aug ust th KE TD NN Un TD i ed at es Di ri ct ge Copies furnished to all counsel of ecor Case Document Entered on FLSD Docket Page of
7,084 characters
