Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24CMCV00653, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24CMCV00653 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: A
24CMCV00653 Pablo
Merced, et al v. Pearce Tank Line, Inc., et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY AS TO DEFENDANT, AGUSTIN RAMIREZ
I.
BACKGROUND
This is
a wrongful death action arising from the death of Samuel Merced (“Decedent”) who
was Plaintiffs’ son. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, Augustin Ramirez (“Defendant”),
while employed by Defendant, Pearce Tank Line, Inc. (“Pearce”) and while
driving Pearce’s tractor trailer, struck decedent’s vehicle.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Defendant
Ramirez requests an order to stay discovery as he has been charged with
vehicular manslaughter for the incident alleged in this action and is subject
to an ongoing criminal prosecution in People v. Ramirez, Case No.
24CMCM00382-01. Defendant will assert his Fifth Amendment rights against
self-incrimination.
In
opposition, Plaintiffs argue that Defendant did not establish all factors that
would warrant a stay. Defendant has not demonstrated how his Fifth Amendment
rights are implicated if Plaintiffs pursue discovery on the issues of damages,
insurance information, or basic information such as Defendant’s background,
education, or employment. Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice as a result.
Defendant should not be shielded from all discovery because he is subject to
criminal prosecution. Defendant does not have an absolute right to refuse to
testify.
In
reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs will seek incriminating statements in
discovery. Defendant should not be compelled to incriminate himself. The court
can monitor the progression of the criminal matter as part of case management.
III.
DISCUSSION
A
person has a privilege to refuse to disclose matters that may tend to
incriminate him. (Evid.
Code, § 940.) The trial court has discretion to stay the entire action
until the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding after consideration of
certain factors while also acknowledging that it is “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.” (Avant!
Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 885.)
The
court conducts a “particularized inquiry” of (1) the plaintiffs’ interests 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!
at 887.)
A stay
is not constitutionally required. (Avant!
at 886.) However, since a defendant’s silence is constitutionally
guaranteed, the court can fashion any remedy that justice requires, including
staying civil proceedings, postponing civil discovery, or imposing protective
orders and conditions as required by the interests of justice. (Id.)
Plaintiffs
have an interest in proceeding expeditiously with the resolution of their case.
However, "the court should weigh the parties' competing interests with a
view toward accommodating the interests of both parties, if possible. An order
staying discovery until expiration of the criminal statute of limitations would
allow real parties to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating petitioners'
difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case." (Pacers,
Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690 [Postponing
petitioner’s depositions "will cause inconvenience and delay to real
parties; however, protecting a party's constitutional rights is
paramount."].)
Defendant
Ramirez requests a limited stay of discovery propounded on Ramirez only. Plaintiffs have asserted direct and vicarious
liability claims against Pearce, Ramirez’s employer, for permissive use,
negligent hiring/supervision/ training/retention, and a claim for negligence. Discovery
can continue with respect to those claims that are not clearly implicated by Ramirez’s
Fifth Amendment rights.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the court GRANTS the motion for a stay on discovery as to
Defendant Ramirez only, pending the outcome of the criminal prosecution.