M. CASEY RODGERS, Magistrate Judge
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiffs JOHN DOE 1, PLAINTIFF C, JOHN DOE 2, PLAINTIFF D, JANE DOE 1, PLAINTIFF B, PLAINTIFF M, JANE DOE 2, PLAINTIFF J, JANE DOE 3, PLAINTIFF S AND PLAINTIFF L'S Motion to Lift Stay and For Status Conference (doc. 75) and Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Lift Stay and For Status Conference (doc. 83). In their motions, Plaintiffs seek to have the Court lift the stay entered on February 4, 2004, (doc. 43) so that discovery may proceed in this action. The Court notes that there is a criminal case currently pending in state court in Bay County, Florida, arising from the same facts and involving the same parties as the instant action. The Plaintiffs state in their motion (doc. 75) that discovery in the criminal case has been ongoing and delayed on several occasions. Counsel for Plaintiffs states he has contacted the State Attorney's Office and has been advised that the criminal case will probably not be ready for trial until midsummer 2005. Plaintiffs believe that staying this case until the conclusion of the criminal trial will place an onerous burden on them, as there is potential for disappearance of witnesses and failure of witnesses to recall precise facts relating to the underlying events.
As of this date, the parallel criminal action is pending before the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida in Bay County, Florida. See State v. MRA Holding, LLC, No. 03-1036H.
The underlying events giving rise to this action and the pending state criminal action took place in spring 2003 in Panama City Beach, Florida.
In their amended motion for stay, Plaintiffs claim that additional facts warrant lifting the stay. Specifically, they claim that Plaintiff J has been in a state of depression since the events of spring 2003 that are the basis for this case. Counsel claims that she has been prescribed psychiatric medications and that she has had a constant problem with the notoriety surrounding the incident. Recently, Plaintiff J attempted to harm herself by repeatedly cutting her wrists, to the point that she significantly injured herself and was treated in the emergency room at a local hospital. (See doc. 83). Plaintiffs claim that there are similar emotional circumstances ongoing with several of the other Plaintiffs stemming from the underlying events that are the basis for this case and seek to have the stay lifted so that this matter may proceed toward mediation or trial and closure for the Plaintiffs.
In their response to the amended motion to stay (doc. 85), Defendants maintain that the stay is mandated by statute. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) provides that:
The Court notes that the response to Plaintiffs' motion has been filed by Defendants JOSEPH R. FRANCIS, MRA HOLDING, LLC, MANTRA FILMS, INC., and AERO FALCONS, LLC (the "Mantra Defendants"). Defendants MARK D. SCHMITZ and RYAN DAVID SIMKIN are each represented by separate counsel and have neither joined in the Mantra Defendants response nor filed a response on their own behalf to Plaintiffs' instant motions.
If, at any time that a cause of action for recovery of compensation for damage or injury to the person of a child exists, a criminal action is pending which arises out of the same occurrence and in which the child is the victim, the civil action shall be stayed until the end of all phases of the criminal action and any mention of the civil action during the criminal proceeding is prohibited. As used in this subsection, a criminal action is pending until its final adjudication in the trial court.
Defendants argue that proceeding with the instant case would prevent the use of evidence now held as contraband in the state criminal action, and would create numerous discovery and evidentiary issues. Defendants further argue that the issues in the state criminal action and the instant case overlap such that resolution of the criminal case may lead to a speedy settlement in this civil action. Moreover, Defendants claim that they will assert their Fifth Amendment privilege in response to discovery in this matter.
The Court notes that Plaintiffs do not cite any statutory authority or case law upon which the Court can rely to lift the stay. The Court is aware that the stay in this case has been in effect for over one year. However, the language of 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) is clear that a stay is required in a case such as this where a parallel criminal action is pending which arises from the same occurrence involving minor victims. See 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k). Inasmuch as Plaintiffs have offered no authority or evidence to the contrary, the Court finds that the stay in this case must remain in effect until final adjudication of the criminal case by the state court.
Plaintiffs may file a motion for reconsideration at a later date should they find legal authority to support their argument that the stay should be lifted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Lift Stay and For Status Conference (doc. 75) is DENIED; and
2. Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Lift Stay and For Status Conference (doc. 83) is DENIED.
ORDERED.