vil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been characterized as an "extraordinary remedy." Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (emphasis added). As a result, a civil defendant urging a stay pending a parallel criminal prosecution bears the bu

gs when related criminal proceedings are imminent or pending, and it will sometimes be prudential to do so" (quoting Louis Vuitton Ma!leder S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012))). Among other things, the stay vindicates the Fifth Amendment and guards against witnesses learning information in

r. 1987) 37, 40 In re Teligent, Inc., 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011) 1 Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1982) 22 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) 34 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) 19, 21 Maldanado v. City of New York, Case No. 17

case simply because she has been indicted." Resp. at 6. The Second Circuit has a litany of factors, articulated in Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 96 (2d Cir. 2012), and applied numerous times since. Plaintiff has not identified any case applying the Louis Vuitton factors in which

ivil case to permit conclusion of a related criminal prosecution has been characterized as an extraordinary remedy." Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83, 98 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this Circuit, courts balance the following six factors when considering whet