Cockrum v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

The plaintiffs in Cockrum v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., claim that the Russians, Wikileaks and the Trump campaign conspired to capture, and then strategically release, emails by DNC staffers and Democratic party contributors. The plaintiffs claim the defendants violated their privacy by revealing information such as their addresses, Social Security numbers and, in one case, details that implied the plaintiff was gay. Here’s what Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of UC Berkeley Law School, has to say about this lawsuit: “Discovery…offers a chance to learn what role the Trump campaign had in encouraging this invasion of privacy—and this assault on our democracy—by Russia and Wikileaks. And thus, it provides a great service to the nation [...] “[C]ivil discovery create[s] an opportunity for the plaintiffs to obtain relevant evidence and prove their case that the conspiracy that caused them serious harms. This will deter the defendants and others inclined to intimidate citizens who wish to participate in the political process.” (The court just heard arguments on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case, but the organization representing the plaintiffs is confident that it won’t be granted, and it seems a good bet that discovery will soon follow.)

In the perfect world that we’re light years from inhabiting, civil litigation wouldn’t typically be the means to these secondary ends. Laws and regulations would prevent most of the bad acts from happening, and most of those that slipped through would be handled through criminal justice or accountability built into the political process. In this case, in particular, it would be better if criminal conduct came to light through the Mueller probe. And of course, he has powerful tools to make that happen. But the pace is slower, his job is precarious, and his range is limited by the terms under which his investigation was authorized. (For instance, Trump’s elusive tax returns might come out in one of the civil cases, but not as a result of the Mueller effort.)

  Politico

Discovery in these cases, including the Stormy Daniels suit, is how we're finding out things like Michael Cohen's pay-to-play scheme for presidential access.  Mueller has all this information, but in the end, we might never find out what all Mueller knows if there is no indictment or impeachment.

Also, I'm presuming this case in particular, if won by plaintiffs, would be proof of "collusion" that Trump so adamantly denies, and the criminal claim would be conspiracy.