Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV13659, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV13659    Hearing Date: May 23, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV13659 Yishar Castillo Jimenez, et al. v. Elmer Santos, et al.

Friday, May 24, 2025

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS PENDING OUTCOME OF DEFENDANT, ELMER SANTOS’, CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

I.        BACKGROUND

       The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are the heirs of decedents, Kevin Alexander Castillo and Maria Belen Polanco Aviles. The decedents were killed in a car accident after Defendant, Elmer Santos (“Santos”) struck the decedents’ vehicle while intoxicated. Plaintiffs allege claims for negligence, wrongful death, and dangerous condition of public property.

       On October 9, 2024, the City of Los Angeles filed a cross-complaint against co-defendants, for indemnity, apportionment of fault, and for declaratory relief.

II.      ARGUMENT

       While Defendant Santos’ motion is captioned as a request to stay civil proceedings, the requested relief is to stay all discovery directed to him and/or issuing a protective order to prevent further discovery from being served on him. (Mot.  2:20-21.) Santos argues that criminal charges were filed on July 13, 2023, against him arising out of the same events alleged in the complaint. Santos’ Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination will be compromised if discovery remains open during the pendency of any criminal charges being raised against him.

       Defendant, Burger Factory II, (“BF II”) joins in the motion but asks for a complete stay of the action until the conclusion of the criminal case. BF II argues it would experience similar prejudice if a key witness involved in the accident is unable to substantively participate in discovery due to Fifth Amendment concerns.

       Defendant Santos filed a notice that neither Plaintiff nor any other Defendant filed an opposition.

III.    DISCUSSION

       Defendant Santos cites Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, which is procedurally and factually distinguishable. The defendants in that action asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination at their deposition because they were threatened with criminal proceedings for assault and battery, which was the same incident at issue in the civil action. (Pacers, Inc. at 687.) The court of appeal reversed the trial court’s order prohibiting the defendants from testifying at trial because it was issued as a sanction for defendants’ assertion of their constitutional rights. The defendants did not violate discovery rules by asserting the privilege, because the plaintiffs had no right to privileged information. (Pacers, Inc. at 689.)

       The Pacers court stated where 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. Pacers acknowledged that 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 at 690.)

       In Fisher v. Gibson (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 275, the Second District Court of Appeal, acknowledged the dilemma faced by a criminal defendant who must choose between defending the civil litigation by providing potentially incriminating information and losing the civil case for asserting the privilege and choosing to remain silent. (Fisher at 283.) The Fisher court noted the inherent unfairness of compelling disclosure of a criminal defendant’s evidence and defenses before the criminal trial. (Fisher at 284.)

       While acknowledging the significant issues raised by assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, a criminal defendant may not invoke a “blanket privilege” against self-incrimination with respect to the criminal defendant’s deposition. (Fisher at 286.) Rather, the trial court should be given the opportunity to determine whether particular questions posed in discovery implicate the privilege. (Fisher at 286.)

       That determination can be made in the context of a motion for protective order which would give the trial court an opportunity to determine whether particular questions would elicit answers that “support a conviction or that furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the witness.” (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 308.)

       Therefore, Warford v. Medeiros (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1035, cited by the Fuller court, determined that the privilege must be specifically claimed on a particular question for the trial court to determine the validity of the assertion of privilege. (Id. at 1044-1045). The trial court must engage in a “particularized inquiry” depending on the circumstances but which may include consideration of factors including "1) the nature of the information sought to be disclosed, 2) implications derived from the question asked, 3) the nature and verifiability of any investigation or proceeding claimed to justify the fear of incrimination, or the possibility that any such investigation or proceeding may be commenced, 4) matters disclosed by counsel in argument on the claim of privilege, and 5) evidence previously admitted.” (Warford at 1045 fn.8.)

       Accordingly, instead of issuing a “blanket stay” on discovery directed to Defendant, the court will consider the privilege in the context in which the privilege is asserted whether by questions in a deposition or written discovery requests or other discovery tool.

       Defendant BF II has not cited any authority to support a stay of the entire proceedings. The assertion of the privilege may not “thereby bring the civil action to a halt.” (Fisher at 285.) Nor has BF II persuasively established that it will suffer prejudice similar to a criminal defendant. Plaintiffs allege a claim for wrongful death/negligence for BF II’s failure to take appropriate safety measures on its premises which posed a danger to persons traveling on the property. (Complaint, ¶ 58.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that decedents were exiting a parking lot near the location of BF II’s property at 1358 West Boulevard, in Los Angeles. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 35.) BF II’s alleged failures in using safety measures on its property caused or contributed to Plaintiffs’ harm.

       BF II does not identify any reason that discovery propounded on BF II to marshal evidence of BF II’s separate liability should also be stayed, let alone the entire proceeding.

IV.    CONCLUSION

       Based on the foregoing. Defendant’s motion for a stay of discovery directed against him, and BF II’s request for a stay of the entire action are both DENIED.