Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV28568, Date: 2024-02-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28568    Hearing Date: February 28, 2024    Dept: 28

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

BACKGROUND 

On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff Madeleine K. Strockis (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Veann Bracken (“Defendant”) and Does 1-15 for civil assault and battery. 

On November 18, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On April 17, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s request to stay the action pending the outcome of Defendant’s criminal case. The Court ordered: “In granting the stay, all parts of this case, including discovery, will be stayed pending the outcome [of] the criminal case.” 

On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial lifting of the stay, to be heard on February 28, 2024. On February 14, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition. On February 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. 

The action is currently stayed. 

PARTIES’ REQUESTS 

Plaintiff asks the Court to lift the stay to allow the parties to conduct third-party discovery. 

Defendant asks the Court to deny the motion. 

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

          The Court grants Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“Every court shall have the power to . . . [¶] amend and control its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice.”   (Code Civ. Proc., § 128, subd. (1)(8).)

“Thirty or more days following issuance of [a] stay order, any party that is subject to the stay order may move to terminate the stay.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.515(g).) 

DISCUSSION 

          Plaintiff asks the Court to lift the stay for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to conduct third-party discovery because the criminal case has been delayed for more than a year, prejudicing Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute her civil case against Defendant.  Defendant opposes the motion, arguing the stay should remain undisturbed.  Defendant does not show, however, that allowing third-party discovery to resume will violate Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights.

          Due to the passage of time since imposition of the stay and the minimal progress in the criminal case, the Court finds that Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury without partial relief from the stay.  On the other hand, Defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights will not be adversely affected by allowing the parties to conduct third-party discovery while the criminal proceedings are pending. 

          Therefore, the Court grants the motion and lifts the stay only with respect to the parties’ ability to conduct third-party discovery. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Madeleine K. Strockis’s motion for partial lifting of the stay and lifts the stay for the limited purpose of allowing the parties to conduct third-party discovery.

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.