Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV00432, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV00432, Date: 2024-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00432 Hearing Date: July 18, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Geske’s General Engineering, Inc. v. Wickham Group, LLC, et al. Case No. 23SMCV00432

Hearing Date: July 18, 2024

Defendant Timothy Wickham’s Motion for Stay Pending Resolution of Criminal Charges

Plaintiff Geske’s General Engineering sued Wickham Group, Inc., William Wickham, Wickham Group, LLC, Timothy Wickham and Tyerman for claims arising out of alleged failure to pay for subcontracting services on a residential construction project. Homeowner Tyerman cross-complained against plaintiff and defendants for negligence, breach of contract, express indemnity and disgorgement.

Defendant Wickham is charged with theft of funds from Tyerman in a pending criminal matter, Case No. 23VWCF00089-01. Def. Motion, p. 5; Burns Decl. ¶3. Timothy Wickham moves to stay this matter pending resolution of the criminal matter.

Evidentiary Objections

Tyerman Objections:

Objections 1-2 SUSTAINED (lack of personal knowledge); Objections 3, 6 SUSTAINED (speculation); Objection 4 OVERRULED; Objection 5 SUSTAINED (lack of foundation).

Motion for Stay

An application for a stay is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Thomson v. Continental Ins. Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 746. An order staying discovery until determination of criminal charges allows plaintiff to prepare his or her action “while alleviating [defendant’s] difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.

Neither the U.S. nor California constitutions require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, but trial courts have discretion to stay if there would be substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved and when interests of justice require. Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir. 1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324; see also, People v. Coleman, (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 885; Alpha Media Resort Inv. Cases (2019) 39 Ca1.App.5th 1121, 1131-1133; Avant! Corp. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 882. The court has an interest in expeditiously processing matters, so “convenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.” Alpha, supra, at 1132, quoting Avant!, supra, at 888. “Indeed, California courts are ‘guided by the strong principle that any elapsed time other than that reasonably required for pleadings and discovery is unacceptable and should be eliminated.” Id., quoting Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin. §2.

Per Evidence Code sec. 940, civil defendants may refuse to disclose self-incriminating information in discovery when facing criminal prosecution involving the same facts that may be used against them in criminal proceedings. Pacers, supra, at 688. To not penalize civil defendants from exercising their privilege against self-incrimination by making them choose between silence and a meaningful chance of avoiding the loss through judicial process of a substantial amount of property, when confronted with this issue, trial courts should stay discovery pending expiration of the criminal statute of limitations or resolution of the criminal case. Id. at 688-690.

Wickham argues the following factors weigh in favor of a stay: “(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.” Avant!, supra, at 885.

Wickham argues his Fifth Amendment rights are implicated, as the cases involve the same allegations and facts, so he cannot respond to discovery without forfeiting his Fifth Amendment rights. The motion cites specific discovery requests which Wickham argues implicate his Fifth Amendment rights.

Tyerman argues Wickham may assert his Fifth Amendment rights in response to individual items of discovery but alleges most issues in this action are unrelated to the criminal matter.

In reviewing the discovery, it appears most of the requests for admission do not pertain to events that are the subject of the criminal matter, Wickham’s alleged theft from Tyerman. Defendant provided the court with examples of specific information sought which might implicate his Fifth Amendment rights, but this is by no means the entirety of the discovery propounded upon him.

Per Evidence Code section 940, nothing prevents Wickham from objecting to individual discovery requests based on his Fifth Amendment rights if the information sought may reasonably be used against him in the criminal matter.

The court recognizes the parties’ strong in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation. Staying this matter indefinitely pending outcome of the criminal matter may prejudice plaintiff and cross-complainant, who wish to have their claims adjudicated.

Further, other defendants who do not face criminal prosecution, including the entity defendants, can respond to and participate in discovery fully. The entity defendants do not have Fifth Amendment privileges, are not the subject of criminal prosecution, and may respond to discovery. The request to stay is overbroad and implicates the rights of all parties. Wickham’s Fifth Amendment rights can be protected via a more limited means – objection to individual items of discovery on privilege grounds. DENIED.