Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 24NWCV02152, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NWCV02152 Hearing Date: June 4, 2025 Dept: R
#5
BOYLE v. NORBERG
CASE NO.: 24NWCV02152
HEARING: Thursday, June 5, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.
Defendant ADAM YOUSSEF NORBERG’s Motion to Stay All Discovery Directed at Defendant ADAM YOUSSEF NORBERG pending conclusion of all proceedings in People v. Norberg, Los Angeles County Criminal Case No 25BFCM01333-01 is GRANTED.
Moving Party to give notice.
BACKGROUND
The Court notes that a Notice of Reassignment was filed in this case on May 9, 2025 which states that effective June 2, 2025, this action was reassigned to Judge Brian F. Gasdia as an individual, direct calendaring judge for all purposes, including trial, in Dept. R.
This motor vehicle-personal injury action was filed by Plaintiff MICHAEL BOYLE against Defendant ADAM YOUSSEF NORBERG (“Defendant”) and DOES 1 to 20 on July 15, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n or around July 22, 2022, Plaintiff was driving with the right-of-way when Defendants ran a red light and caused a collision. Defendants negligently and/or recklessly operated his/her/their vehicle (and did so in violation of California law in a manner so as to constitute negligence per se) and caused a collision that caused harm to Plaintiff.” (Complaint, PLD-PI-001(2).)
Defendant now moves for an Order to stay all discovery directed to Defendant in this subject civil action, pending conclusion of the criminal action simultaneously pending against Defendant in Los Angeles County Criminal Case, People v. Norberg, Case No.25BFCM01333-01.
In Opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Fifth Amendment does not automatically entitled Defendant to a discovery stay, and that a balancing of factors weight heavily against the issuance of a stay.
MERITS
Pursuant to CCP §128(a)(3), every court has the power to provide for the orderly conduct of proceedings, including the power to stay discovery in a civil action pending outcome of a related criminal case.
“The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings.” (Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324. (“Keating”).)
In Keating, the 9th Cir. stated that the decision to stay civil proceedings turns on “the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in the case,” including the extent to which the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated along with five additional factors: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.” (Id. at 324-325.)
“In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous parallel civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence. Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings… when the interests of justice seem to require such action.” (Avant! Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)
“Courts recognize the dilemma faced by a Defendant who must choose between defending the civil litigation by providing testimony that may be incriminating on the one hand, and losing the case by asserting the constitutional right and remaining silent, on the other hand. At the same time, courts must also consider the interests of the Plaintiff in civil litigation where the Defendant is exposed to parallel criminal prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to an expeditious and fair resolution of their civil claims without being subjected to unwarranted surprise. Added to the mix, of course, is the interest of the Courts in fairly and expeditiously disposing of civil cases, and in efficiently utilizing judicial resources. Courts that are confronted with a civil Defendant who is exposed to criminal prosecution arising from the same facts weigh the parties’ competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible. One accommodation is to stay the civil proceeding until disposition of the related criminal prosecution. Another possibility is to… [preclude] a litigant who claims the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in discovery from waiving the privilege and testifying at trial to matters upon which the privilege had been asserted.” (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 305-307.)
Here, the LA County District Attorney’s Office initiated a criminal action against Defendant, alleging one count in violation of VC23153(a) – Driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury, and one count in violation of VC23153(b)- Driving with a BAC of .08% or more causing bodily injury to another. (Reply, Nguyen Decl., ¶4, Ex. C.) The criminal case involves the same Subject Incident that forms the basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint in this civil action. Any responses that Defendant provides to outstanding discovery requests in this action could implicate Defendant Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the parallel criminal action.
The Court finds that a stay limited to all discovery directed at Defendant Norberg is sufficient and warranted.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay All Discovery Directed at Defendant Norberg pending conclusion of all proceedings in Criminal Case No. 25BFCM01333-01 is GRANTED.
The Court notes that there is a Pre-Trial Hearing scheduled in the criminal action for July 11, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4 of the Bellflower Courthouse.
The Court sets a Status Conference re: Discovery Stay as to Defendant Adam Youssef Norberg for Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R.