Judge Melvin D. Sandvig, Case Number: 23CHCV00440, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00440, Date: 2023-12-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00440 Hearing Date: December 5, 2023 Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 12/5/23

Case #23CHCV00440

MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY AS TO DEFENDANT JOSHUA JOHN DUMAS

Motion filed on 8/14/23.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Joshua John Dumas

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiffs Alfredo Morales, Leslie Theresa Burrows and Mike Allen Bushaw

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order staying discovery as to Defendant Joshua John Dumas pending resolution of criminal proceedings against Dumas in Los Angeles Superior Court (ATPMA082728-01).

RULING: The motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on 3/6/21 between a vehicle driven by Decedent Eileen Morales (Decedent) and a vehicle driven by Defendant Joshua John Dumas (Dumas). Decedent died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision. On 3/8/22, criminal charges for vehicular manslaughter were filed in Los Angeles County against Dumas in case number ATPMA082728-01. (T. Park Decl., Ex.A).

On 2/16/23, Decedent’s spouse, Alfredo Morales, and children, Leslie Theresa Burrows and Mike Allen Bushaw (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed this action for: (1) wrongful death – negligence against Dumas, (2) wrongful death – negligence against Reman Giroin dba R&H Auto, (3) loss of consortium against all defendants and (4) survival claims against all defendants. On 7/31/23, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of the complaint as to Reman Giroin dba R&H Auto.

After the parties stipulated to have his default set aside, Dumas answered the complaint on 8/7/23. (See 8/4/23 Stipulation & Order; Dumas Answer filed 8/7/23). On 8/14/23, Dumas filed and served the instant motion seeking an order staying discovery as to Dumas pending resolution of criminal proceedings against Dumas in Los Angeles Superior Court (ATPMA082728-01). Plaintiffs have opposed the motion and Dumas has filed a reply to the opposition.

Defendant is currently awaiting his criminal trial to begin. (T. Park Decl. ¶5).

ANALYSIS

Under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution “[n]o person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Similarly, under Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution, “[p]ersons may not…be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against themselves.” See also Fuller (2001) 87 CA4th 299, 302, fn.3. California Evidence Code 940 provides “[t]o the extent that such privilege exists under the Constitution of the United States or the State of California, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose any matter that may tend to incriminate him.” As such, it has been held that the privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted in civil as well as criminal proceedings. Fuller, supra at 305 citing Pacers, Inc. (1984) 162 CA3d 686, 688; See also Lefkowitz (1973) 414 U.S. 70, 77.

Dumas is not required to conclusively establish that answers to discovery will subject him to prosecution or conviction in order to obtain a stay of discovery. Zonver (1969) 270 CA2d 613, 621. Dumas is currently facing criminal charges arising out of the same facts and circumstances as this action wherein Plaintiffs are pursuing punitive damages against him. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that without a stay of discovery as against Dumas in this action, Dumas’ right against self-incrimination will be compromised as he will be forced to choose between exercising his right to remain silent and his right to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims. See Fuller, supra at 306 citing Avant! Corporation (2000) 79 CA4th 876, 882; Warford (1984) 160 CA3d 1035, 1044. One of the accepted ways to accommodate such a dilemma is to stay the civil proceeding until disposition of the related criminal prosecution. Fuller, supra at 307-308 citing Avant! Corporation, supra at 882; People v. Coleman (1975) 13 C3d 867, 885; Pacers, Inc., supra at 689-690.

The Court finds that it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy to stay discovery as to Dumas in this action rather than address each of the likely many future discovery disputes individually or to require Dumas to seek a protective order/immunity in the criminal case with regard discovery requests which implicate his right against self-incrimination as they arise.

Further, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, Dumas does not seek to stay all discovery in this action. (See Opposition, p.2:2). Rather, Dumas only seeks to stay discovery as against himself. As such, Plaintiffs can proceed with obtaining testimony of witnesses to the incident, and testimony of those who knew Decedent and can testify regarding Plaintiffs’ wrongful death damages. (See Opposition, p.5:7-11). Therefore, Plaintiffs will not be unduly prejudiced by granting the relief requested. On the other hand, Dumas is likely to suffer severe prejudice if he is required to participate in civil discovery while the criminal case against him is pending. Any inconvenience to Plaintiffs’ is outweighed by Dumas’ constitutional right against self-incrimination. See Pacers, supra at 690-691.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Discovery is stayed as to all discovery directed to Defendant Joshua John Dumas until the resolution of the pending criminal case (ATPMA082728-01) against him arising out of the same facts and circumstances as this civil case.