National Coalition on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl
- Jed Rakoff
- 1:20-cv-08668
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In National Coalition on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl, Judge Marrero ordered plaintiffs to respond within five days to defendants’ renewed stay request.
The order affected the plaintiffs, who were required to respond within five days, and defendants Jacob Wohl, Jack Burkman, J.M., Burkman & Associates, LLC, and Project 1599, whose renewed request for a stay and an extension of time remained pending in the provided text.
What happened
National Coalition on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl concerns defendants’ request to pause the civil case while criminal proceedings against Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman continue in Michigan and Ohio. The defendants also requested more time to answer the complaint.
The defendants argued that continuing the civil case could force Wohl and Burkman to risk self-incrimination, reveal their criminal defenses, and expand criminal discovery. They also argued that admissions in an answer could bind them later in the civil case. The opinion text does not state the plaintiffs’ response or position beyond saying that plaintiffs’ counsel did not consent to the requests.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the renewed request for a stay and an extension of time within five days. Judge Victor Marrero signed the order on January 19, 2021; the text provided does not say whether the stay or extension was ultimately granted or denied.
The detailed version
- National Coalition on Black Civic Participation v. Wohl · No. 1:20-cv-08668
- Jed Rakoff
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
The opinion text consists principally of a letter from defendants Jacob Wohl, Jack Burkman, J.M., Burkman & Associates, LLC, and Project 1599. The defendants asked the court to stay discovery in the civil action until criminal proceedings involving Wohl and Burkman in Michigan and Ohio were resolved. They also asked for an extension of their deadline to answer the complaint, which they stated was January 26, 2021.
The request relied on the defendants’ Fifth Amendment protection against being forced to incriminate themselves. The defendants argued that the civil and criminal matters arose from the same facts and that proceeding with the civil case could undermine that protection, expose their criminal defenses before trial, and expand the prosecution’s access to information beyond ordinary criminal discovery. They also argued that factual statements in an answer could become binding judicial admissions.
Defendants’ Requested Relief
The defendants asked for a stay of the civil action until the Michigan and Ohio criminal proceedings ended. Alternatively, they asked for an extension of the time to answer until those proceedings were resolved. They argued that any delay would cause plaintiffs only limited inconvenience and that developments in the criminal cases could simplify the civil litigation.
The text cites decisions discussing stays of civil proceedings related to criminal matters and the need to balance the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, the courts, nonparties, and the public. It also states that plaintiffs could later ask the court to lift the stay if circumstances changed. The opinion text does not provide a merits decision in the underlying civil case.
Court’s Action
The court directed the plaintiffs to respond to the defendants’ renewed motion for a stay and extension of the time to answer within five days. The order states, “SO ORDERED,” and is dated January 19, 2021, with the signature of Victor Marrero, United States District Judge. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied either requested form of relief.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addresses case management and discovery-related relief without deciding the underlying claims. The supplied text contains no ruling on the merits of those claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.