Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV28668, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28668    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

Plaintiffs Ryan Roebuck and Gaurav Walia allege they were robbed at gunpoint on May 16, 2022, outside the Mr. C Beverly Hills Hotel. Defendant BHR Beverly Hills LP owned the hotel at the time. Security services were provided by co-defendant ATF Private Security.

Days before the robbery, ATF employee Victor Urincho, who is not a party to this action, was captured on surveillance footage entering the hotel’s camera control room, despite not being authorized to do so. Moments after he entered, the hotel’s security cameras were shut off and remained off during the incident. Defendant contends that this tampering prevented video documentation of the robbery.

The Los Angeles Police Department is purportedly conducting an active investigation into the incident and has refused to produce records or permit depositions of its officers, citing Penal Code § 832.7 and the ongoing nature of the investigation. Defendant argues it is severely prejudiced in preparing its defense without access to LAPD records or testimony. Defendant also notes that Urincho, though a non-party, may assert his Fifth Amendment privilege if deposed, which would further limit the availability of relevant testimony.

Defendant BHR Beverly Hills LP now moves the court to stay the proceedings.

Legal Standard 

In deciding whether to stay proceedings when a civil defendant faces parallel criminal charges, the court should consider: “(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, 885; Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at p. 325.)¿ “[I]t has been consistently held that when both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, an objecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.”¿ (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690.)¿ 

“[T]he privilege is properly invoked whenever the witness’s answers ‘would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute’ the witness for a criminal offense.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (People v. Cudjo (1993) 6 Cal.4th 585, 617.)¿ “[I]t need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.”¿ (Ibid.)¿ 

Because a civil defendant does not possess an absolute right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination, a party or witness in a civil proceeding may be compelled either to waive the privilege or accept the civil consequences of silence if they choose to exercise it. Courts recognize the dilemma faced by a defendant who must choose between defending the civil litigation by providing testimony that may be incriminating, and losing the case by asserting the constitutional right and remaining silent. Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 305–306.  Additionally, courts must consider the interests of the plaintiff in civil litigation where the defendant faces parallel criminal prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to an expeditious and fair resolution of their civil claims without being subjected to unwarranted surprise. (Id.) 

Moreover, courts have an interest in fairly and expeditiously disposing of civil cases and in efficiently utilizing judicial resources. Staying civil discovery to await the outcome of a related criminal case might benefit the litigants and does not implicate constitutional issues. However, courts are guided by the strong principle that any delay beyond what is reasonably required for pleadings and discovery “is unacceptable and should be eliminated.” Courts must control the pace of litigation, reduce delays, and maintain a current docket so as to enable the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of cases. (Id.) 

Discussion

A stay under Avant! typically involves cases where a defendant faces parallel civil and criminal proceedings. However, this case involves a third-party witness who is not a defendant in the action. In the moving papers, Defendant does not cite any legal authority holding that a stay is appropriate based solely on the Fifth Amendment privilege of a non-party witness rather than a party to the civil action who also faces criminal exposure. The cases Defendant relies on, Avant! Corp., supra., Pacers, Inc., supra., Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC v. Ganim (D. Conn. 2002) 269 F.Supp.2d 6, and Kastigar v. United States (1972) 406 U.S. 441, all involve defendants in concurrent civil and criminal proceedings.

Moreover, the rationale behind granting a stay does not extend to third-party witnesses. The purpose of a stay is to protect litigants, particularly civil defendants, from being forced to choose between self-incrimination and forfeiting their ability to defend themselves. The balancing framework between civil consequences and Fifth Amendment rights applies only to parties in the litigation. A non-party like Urincho does not face civil liability or compelled forfeiture of rights in the same manner. Therefore, the rationale supporting a stay does not apply. The motion is therefore denied.

Furthermore, even if the Court were to consider a stay, it would not justify staying the entire action, as Urincho’s potential criminal culpability has no bearing on discovery related to Defendant, Plaintiff, or the other defendants. Staying the case would deprive Defendant of the opportunity to obtain documents and testimony necessary to formulate its defense. Even if the Court were to grant a limited stay of discovery as to a third party, it is unclear what practical effect that would have, as Urincho is not a defendant in this case and does not face civil liability or the risk of compelled forfeiture of rights.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.