CNH Industrial Capital America LLC v. Venture Equipment LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: December 13, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-00399
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION CNH INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL PLAINTIFF AMERICA LLC v. CASE NO. 4:22-CV-00399-BSM VENTURE EQUIPMENT LLC, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Defendants’ motion to stay [Doc. No. 22] is denied. The motions to quash and motion for protective order [Doc. Nos. 30, 33, and 35] are taken under advisement, and defendants have fourteen days to submit a proposed protective order.

I. MOTION TO STAY Plaintiff CNH Industrial Capital America is suing defendants Steve Merritt and Venture Equipment for fraud and defendants are requesting a stay because they are being criminally investigated on identical issues. They argue that, unless they are given time to

resolve the criminal issues, they will be forced to waive their Fifth Amendment privilege or have an adverse inference given. Defs.’ Mot. to Stay, Doc. No. 22; Defs.’ Br. Supp. Mot. to Stay, Doc. No. 23. Plaintiff objects because a formal criminal proceeding has not begun and no indictment has issued. Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. to Stay, Doc. No, 24.

Defendants’ motion is denied because, although defendants’ concern is understandable, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is an ongoing factually related criminal investigation warranting a stay. See Koester v. Am. Republic Invs., Inc., 11 F.3d 818, 823 (8th Cir. 1993)(a party requesting the stay must show that, “either the two proceedings are so interrelated that he cannot protect himself at the civil trial by selectively invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege . . . or that the two trials will so overlap that effective defense of both is impossible”). The only evidence presented is a Department of Justice Consent to Search Form. Doc. No. 22-1, Exhibit A. Il. MOTIONS TO QUASH CNH has issued subpoenas to four separate financial institutions seeking evidence that it claims is directly relevant to its claims. Br. Supp. Resp. to Mot. Quash, Doc. No. 38 at 2. Defendants and Southern Bank move to quash the subpoenas, arguing that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Doc. Nos. 30, 33; Defs.’ Mot. to Quash, Doc. No. 30. Southern Bank also argues that it is not legally permitted to produce the documents without a protective order. Southern Bank’s Mot. to Quash, Doc. No. 33. In response, CNH has submitted a protective order, to which, defendants object. Mot. for Protective Order, Doc. No. 35-1, Exhibit A. Defendants, therefore, have fourteen days to submit a proposed protective order. If the parties cannot agree on the language of the order, I will decide which order to enter. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2022. Baro 2 mn 9M US DISTRICT COURT JUDGE