Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22STCV21424, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV21424    Hearing Date: January 12, 2023    Dept: C

ALEXIS L v. NORWALK/LA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

CASE NO.:  22STCV21424

HEARING:  01/12/24

#4

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant SCOTT WALN’s Motion to Stay Civil Action Pending Resolution of Defendant SCOTT WALN’s parallel criminal proceedings is DENIED. Defendant SCOTT WALN’s Alternative Motion to Stay All Discovery Directed at Defendant SCOTT WALN pending conclusion of all proceedings in Criminal Case No. LC VA158343-01 is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give notice.

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.

“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 Waln, alleging four counts of violation of Penal Code §288(a)— lewd and lascivious acts with a minor, and one count of violation of Penal Code §288(b)(1)— lewd act with a minor by force and fear. (Gibbs Decl., ¶3.) The criminal case involves the same incident(s) that form the basis for Plaintiff’s Complaint. Any responses that Defendant Waln provides to outstanding discovery requests in this action could implicate Defendant Waln’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the parallel criminal action.

However, to stay of the entire action is unreasonably overbroad. Defendant Waln is not the only defendant in this case—Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Norwalk/La Mirada School District, including staff, principals, and administrators, knew about Defendant Waln’s prior acts of illegal sexual acts with minors and yet took no action. (See FAC ¶8.) Plaintiff would be greatly prejudiced by a stay of the entire action until the conclusion of Defendant Waln’s criminal case. Plaintiff’s investigation of the facts and circumstances pertaining to the School District’s knowledge are ongoing. A stay of the entire action might result in a loss of evidence and/or diminished witness recollection.

The Court finds that a stay limited to all discovery directed at Defendant Waln is sufficient and warranted.

Defendant’s request for a stay is DENIED. However, Defendant’s Alternative Motion to Stay All Discovery Directed at Defendant SCOTT WALN pending conclusion of all proceedings in Criminal Case No. LC VA158343-01 is GRANTED.