Case Number: 22TRCV01629    Hearing Date: April 17, 2023    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                             Monday, April 17, 2023

Department B                                                                                                                               Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Jane F.G. Doe v. Enrique Gonzalez, et al. 

22TRCV01629

1.      Enrique Gonzalez’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings

TENTATIVE RULING

            Enrique Gonzalez’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings is denied without prejudice.

Background

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on December 29, 2022. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Defendant sexually battered Plaintiff when she was a minor. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for: 1. Sexual Assault; 2. Sexual Battery; 3. IIED.  

Motion for Stay

Pursuant to CCP § 128 and through its equitable power, the trial court has broad authority to stay actions in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.  See, Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.  The Court has the discretion to “establish the sequence and timing of discovery for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice.”  CCP § 2019.020(b). The Court has the discretion to stay civil proceedings or limit discovery when a party to a civil case also faces parallel criminal proceedings.  County of Orange v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759, 768.

“Courts faced with a civil defendant who is exposed to a related criminal prosecution have responded with various procedural solutions designed to fairly balance the interests of the parties and the judicial system.  Accommodation of the various interests, however, is usually made to a defendant in a civil action from the standpoint of fairness, not from any constitutional right.  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.”  Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 307 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

“Historically, courts have devised a number of procedures designed to accommodate the specific circumstances of the case.  One accommodation is to stay the civil proceeding until disposition of the related criminal prosecution.  Another possibility is to allow the civil defendant to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, even if doing so may limit the defendant's ability to put on a defense.  Other accommodations have included conferring an immunity on the party invoking the privilege . . . or precluding 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.  Each of these procedural tools is devised based on the circumstances of the particular case.  [T]he alleviation of tension between constitutional rights has been treated as within the province of a court's discretion in seeking to assure the sound administration of justice.”  Id. at 307–08 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Factors “in determining the question of whether a civil proceeding should be stayed pending the disposition of the parallel criminal proceeding, are: (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! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 887 (citing Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 1995).

Defendant moves for an order staying the entire action on the ground that there is an ongoing criminal investigation involving the same allegations of sexual abuse as the civil complaint.  Defendant argues that a blanket stay is necessary to protect Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights in connection with the potential criminal action, which arises from the same underlying facts as this civil matter.

As to the first factor outlined in Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 887, the Court recognizes Plaintiff’s interest in an expeditious resolution to this litigation and the potential prejudice that may result without a speedy outcome.  Second, the Court recognizes the burden that may be imposed upon Defendant if either discovery or the entire action is not stayed. The Court acknowledges Defendant’s difficult decision in either asserting the 5^th Amendment privilege and, thus, jeopardizing his interests in the instant action, or, not asserting the privilege and, thus, potentially prejudicing his interests in a potential criminal action.  The third factor focuses on judicial efficiency and convenience of the Court.  The fourth and fifth factors focus on non-parties and the public. Certainly, the public at large may have an interest in the resolution of this litigation.  However, this interest must be balanced with the interest of Defendant in protecting his Constitutional right to prevent self-incrimination.

Here, Defendant has not even identified or attached any discovery requests that were propounded upon moving Defendant.  Thus, it cannot be determined by the Court whether the responses to discovery may be subject to a proper objection based on the 5^th Amendment privilege. Further, some responses may not require the imposition of the privilege to protect any interests of Defendant.  Thus, responding to any and all discovery requests with a blanket objection based on the 5^th Amendment privilege may not be proper, at this time.

Therefore, Defendant’s request for a blanket stay of this action is denied without prejudice. Defendant has failed to establish that, at this time, he cannot respond to specific discovery items, and object as appropriate based on the 5^th Amendment privilege and/or based on any other appropriate objection.

The better and more expeditious result is to deny the request for a stay, without prejudice, and allow discovery in this action to proceed.  Defendant would then have the opportunity to respond to discovery in an appropriate manner.  Should Defendant have legitimate and meritorious objections to any discovery requests, Defendant would then be within his right to assert such objections.  However, issuing a blanket stay is not appropriate currently.  

Should the course of discovery proceed, and it becomes obvious that it would be more efficient and/or economical to impose a blanket stay on either discovery or the entire action, then, Defendant is within his rights to move again based on this new information.  However, at this stage, it is inappropriate and premature to impose a blanket stay of the entirety action.

Thus, Defendant’s Motion for Stay is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.