MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Can a party in a civil RICO action compel the unsealing of criminal records of an adverse party, when the past criminal conduct purportedly arises out of the same occurrences that form the basis of the civil lawsuit? This latest discovery motion tees up that precise issue. Plaintiffs Silver Sands Motel Inc. (“Silver Sands”), Jean Jurenzia Burden, and Richard Terry Keefe, IV commenced this civil action pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §1962, et seq., alleging that pro se Defendant Jerry M. Mims along with Defendants Long Island Capital Management, Eric Friedlander, Peter Schembri, and Does 1-51 violated the RICO Act by, inter alia, fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs into executing mortgages and keeping or using the proceeds of the mortgages for their benefit. Plaintiffs now move to compel Defendant Mims to unseal records in the possession of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office (the “DA”) related to a past criminal investigation of Mims purportedly arising out of the same transactions and occurrences complained of in this civil matter. Mims opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied. BACKGROUND The following allegations are drawn from the complaint. In short, Plaintiffs allege that in 2008 Mims approached Burden about investing in a real estate deal. (DE 1 45.) Burden responded that she was not interested but instead wanted to borrow a negative pledge2 as she regularly did to support Silver Sands during the winter. (Id.) Plaintiffs allege that instead of securing a negative pledge for $300,000, Mims had Burden sign a mortgage for $750,000. (Id. 47.) Plaintiffs allege that this occurred because Burden suffers from ocular histoplasmosis, resulting in severely impaired vision. (Id. 49.) Burden thus allegedly relied on Mims to read the documents for her, allowing him to lie about their contents and execute this and other mortgages. (Id.