Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV30972, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30972    Hearing Date: March 21, 2023    Dept: 28

Defendant Ethan Wall’s Motion to Stay Discovery

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On September 22, 2022, Plaintiffs Candace Harris (“Harris”), Estate of Almando Martinez (“Estate”), Danny Martinez (“Danny”) and Shad Martinez (“Shad”) filed this action against Defendants Randolph Wall (“Randolph”), Ethan Wall (“Ethan”) and Thomas Wall (“Thomas”) for general negligence, negligent entrustment and wrongful death.

On December 12, 2022, Thomas filed an answer. On December 13, 2022, Ethan filed an answer.

On January 27, 2023, Ethan filed a Motion to Stay Discovery to be heard on March 21, 2023. On March 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On March 10, 2023, Ethan filed a reply.

Trial is currently set for March 21, 2024. 

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Ethan requests the Court stay discovery as to Ethan until the resolution of the criminal proceedings.

Plaintiff requests the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 128 provides that every court has the power to amend and control its processes so as to them conform to law and justice. A stay on discovery is within such inherent discretion of the court, especially within the context of a matter facing both civil and criminal actions. (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690).

DISCUSSION

Ethan requests the Court stay this case pending the outcome of the criminal case, involving this same incident, currently pending against Ethan.

Here, the Court finds that the overall factors weigh in favor of granting a stay. Ethan will be irreparably injured absent a stay on discovery, as responding to discovery may conflict with Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment rights in the pending criminal case. Preserving Ethan’s Fifth Amendment rights overcomes any injury done by issuing a stay pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The action has already been commenced, and Plaintiffs’ right to pursue civil litigation has been preserved. Finally, the public interest lies in staying the case pending the criminal case. Public interest supports a person’s right to a fair and just trial, according to the rules of this state and country.

Plaintiffs focus their argument on a stay of proceedings, rather a stay of discovery; here, Ethan has only asked for a stay on discovery pertaining to Ethan. Plaintiffs can pursue discovery against the other two Defendants, who are not necessarily covered by the Fifth Amendment. As indicated by Plaintiffs’ opposition, it is within the Court’s discretion to grant a stay under these circumstances. The Court grants the motion, as it finds good cause in granting said stay. While not every single discovery question potentially interferes with Ethan’s Fifth Amendment rights, it would be a strain on judicial resources to review and identify every single discovery question or request to determine whether it should be stayed. Therefore, the Court stays all discovery directed at Ethan, pending the outcome of the criminal case.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Ethan Wall’s Motion to Stay Discovery is GRANTED. Discovery directed at Ethan is stayed, pending the outcome of the criminal case.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.