Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV02436, Date: 2024-08-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02436    Hearing Date: August 14, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 14, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Stay Action and for a Protective Order

Moving Party: Defendant Ashton Simmonds

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Fred Gletten and Ghost Rentals, LLC

T/R:     The Motion to Stay Action and for a Protective Order is DENIED

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This is an action arising from an alleged motor vehicle collision on April 3, 2023. On January 30, 2024, Plaintiffs Fred Gletten and Ghost Rentals, LLC sued Defendant Ashton Simmonds, alleging a single cause of action for negligence.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is a celebrity singer-songwriter, and that Plaintiffs are in the business of rental high-value, exotic cars, SUVs, and trucks. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) Defendants have long been customers of Plaintiffs, renting vehicles for business and pleasure. (Complaint, ¶ 8.) In April 2023, Defendants rented multiple vehicles from Plaintiffs, including a 2020 Mercedes AMG G63 (the “Subject Vehicle”). (Complaint, ¶ 8.) On April 3, 2023, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants negligently operated the vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle, rented from Plaintiffs and caused a crash. (Complaint, ¶ 8.)

Defendant now moves “for an order directing a stay of this litigation and for a protective order that the deposition of [Defendant], noticed by Plaintiffs . . . not take place and be stayed, pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings and/or criminal investigations, if any, or until the statute of limitations on criminal charges has expired after April 3, 2026.”

ANALYSIS

“The court, for good cause shown, may make any order that justice requires to protect any party, deponent, or other natural person or organization from unwarranted annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression, or undue burden and expense.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (b).) “[W]hen 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.) “[W]here . . . a defendant’s silence is constitutionally guaranteed, the court should weigh the parties’ competing interests with a view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible.” (Ibid.) “An order staying discovery until expiration of the criminal statute of limitations would allow [plaintiffs] to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating [defendant’s] difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” (Ibid.) “The fifth amendment may be invoked in a civil proceeding.” (Matter of Seper (9th Cir. 1983) 705 F.2d 1499, 1501.) “The privilege against self-incrimination does not depend upon the likelihood, but upon the possibility of prosecution.” (Ibid. [emphasis in original].)

The Court must examine the circumstances and competing interests in the case. (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885 [citation omitted].) “This means the decisionmaker should consider the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” (Ibid. [citation omitted].) “In addition, the decisionmaker should generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with [the] 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.” (Ibid. [citation omitted.) “Not only is it permissible to conduct a civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even if that necessitates invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, but it is even permissible for the trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.” (Ibid.)

According to the April 3, 2023 Traffic Collision Report, there was just one vehicle involved in the collision, a 2022 Tesla Model X, which sped and crashed into multiple objects in the intersection of Marmont Lane and Sunset Boulevard in West Hollywood. One of the passengers in the Tesla was trapped inside and died at the scene. Witness statements indicate that some witnesses smelled alcohol from the driver(s). Plaintiffs allege Defendant was somehow involved.  

            The two alleged drivers, Albert Green and Corbyn Thomas Smith, have been indicted regarding the incident and are awaiting criminal trials. Defendant decided that invoking his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in this lawsuit would be in his best interest.  

            In opposition, Plaintiffs state that Defendant did not mention Fifth Amendment concerns when Plaintiffs requested deposition dates. Only after Plaintiffs noticed Defendant’s deposition did he object, citing Fifth Amendment implications.  

Defendant has not shown a basis for a protective order or to stay the deposition or litigation. There is no evidence Defendant is the subject of a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings.

Defendant’s reliance on County of Orange v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759 is inapposite. That case involved a request by suspects in a criminal investigation to review the contents of an investigative file through civil discovery. Defendant’s reliance on Pacers, Inc., supra, 162 Cal.App.3d 686 also is inapplicable; it a refusal to testify at a civil deposition due to a threatened criminal proceeding.

The factors set forth in Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 876 do not warrant a stay.  Delaying this action “for the result of the related criminal action would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.” (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 887.) Nor will proceeding burden Defendant where there is no evidence of possible criminal prosecution against Defendant. “Until the deposition[] go[es] forward and . . . [defendant] object[s] to specific questions, the court has no basis on which to ascertain, with particularity, whether the information [plaintiffs] seek would support a conviction or lead to prosecution . . . .” (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 310.) 

The Court also finds that “denial of the stay motion promotes the convenience of the court in the management of its cases.” (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 888.) And the public has an interest in this litigation; Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their rights and “[t]he public has a significant interest in a system that encourages individuals to come to court for the settlement of their disputes.” (Id. at p. 889.)