requests the Court lift the stay because he alleges The Hartford has not been forthright with the Government in the criminal prosecution and is withholding exculpatory evidence. Hoeffner contends the only way he can obtain the information he needs to defend himself in the criminal prosecution is by filing the civil cross-claim against The Hartford and using civil discovery as a defense in the criminal action. In response, the Government argues that if The Hartford has exculpatory evidence regarding Hoeffner’s participation in the alleged conspiracy for which he has been indicted, the Government will discover the evidence in the criminal action and provide it to Hoeffner pursuant to Brady v. Maryland’s mandate. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court must determine whether
holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession holding that the state has no affirmative duty to seek out and gain possession of potentially exculpatory evidence