Motion to Compel Deposition
Kassandra Reyes v. Joseph Cappalla, et al., 24CV-0283
Hearing: Motion to Compel Deposition
Date: June 17, 2026
Kassandra Reyes (Plaintiff) filed this action against the State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 1 (CDCR) and Sergeant Joseph M. Cappalla (Cappalla) (collectively Defendants) on April 12, 2024. Plaintiff seeks relief for personal injury suffered by Plaintiff while she was serving as a Correctional Officer as a result of an alleged sexual harassment and assault by her supervisor Cappalla while on duty. (Cmpl., ¶¶ 1, 10-12.)
Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1987.1, 1987.2, 1985.3, 1985.7, 2020.010, 2020.020, 2020.240, 2020.410, 2025.480, and 1209, subdivision (a)(10) for an order compelling compliance with her notice of taking deposition of Cappalla and monetary sanctions against Cappalla and his counsel of record in the amount of $1,700. Cappalla has objected to the notice on grounds of the Fifth Amendment and Evidence Code section 940. 2 Plaintiff’s counsel met and conferred with Defendants’ counsel prior to filing the motion.
Evidence Code section 940 excludes from discovery information which may tend to incriminate a party. (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 688.) “Courts have construed this principle to permit the privilege against self-incrimination to be asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. [Citations.]” (Ibid.)
[A] party is not entitled to decide for himself or herself whether the privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked. ‘Rather this question is for the court to decide after conducting a particularized inquiry, deciding, in connection with each specific area that the questioning party seeks to explore, whether or not the privilege is well founded. This principle applies in both civil and criminal proceedings, and under both the federal and state Constitutions.
Consequently, a civil defendant does not have the absolute right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. A party or witness in a civil proceeding may be required either to waive the privilege or accept the civil consequences of silence if he or she does exercise it.
(Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 305-306
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
1 CDCR is also sued as the State of California. 2 Further statutory references herein are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated.
In addition to the defendant’s right against self-incrimination, the Court must also consider the other party’s right to “an expeditious and fair resolution of their civil claims without being subjected to unwarranted surprise,” and the Court’s interest “in fairly and expeditiously disposing of civil cases, and in efficiently utilizing judicial resources.” (Fuller, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 306-307 [court must exercise its discretion in assessing and balancing the nature and substantiality of the injustices claimed on all sides]; Gov. Code, § 68607.)
Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed to set up a mutually convenient date for the deposition and have delayed in discovery.
There is no dispute that there is a pending criminal matter against Cappalla arising from the same facts that form the basis for this action. It is also clear that he may not invoke a blanket privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the whole deposition. (Fuller, supra, at p. 308.)
The depositions should proceed. If the [defendants] choose to invoke their right against self-incrimination with respect to particular questions, then they should do so at that time. This will provide the trial court with a clear record upon which to base a ruling about whether the constitutional privilege is implicated. Once that determination has been made, the trial court will be in a better position to exercise its discretion and fashion a procedural ruling that can accommodate the various interests of the parties and of the judicial system.
(Fuller, supra, at pp., 309–310.)
In opposition, Defendants contend that Sergeant Cappalla’s constitutional right is paramount against the inconvenience and delay that a stay may cause to Plaintiff. Defendants therefore request a stay in discovery pending the criminal case against him. (Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 690.)
Plaintiff responds that a stay in the deposition will be functionally the same as a stay of the entire action. Plaintiff contends that there is no trial date in the pending criminal action for Cappalla. If Plaintiff is unable to take Cappalla’s deposition, it will cause an indefinite delay in this civil action.
The Court is unable to balance the parties’ interests and determine whether a stay of the deposition (or discovery as a whole) is appropriate without further information regarding the anticipated timeline for resolution of the criminal matter. The Court intends to continue the motion and asks the parties to meet and confer prior to the hearing as to the timeframe for the continuance.
2