RICHARD FERNANDEZ VS. MICHAEL BOVO

July 6, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 24 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 7 25-CIV-09206 RICHARD FERNANDEZ VS. MICHAEL BOVO

RICHARD FERNANDEZ IAN A. HEAD MICHAEL BOVO ROBERT K. PHILLIPS

DEFENDANT MICHAEL BOVO’S MOTION TO STAY

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Stay is DENIED. However, if the Defendant properly notices a contest and proposes a specific and/or temporary delay and/or limitation on certain discovery, the Court will seriously consider it (as well, of course, any arguments from Plaintiffs). The parties are strongly encouraged to meet and confer to discuss the matter in advance and reach a stipulated agreement as to scope/timing, including the possibility phased discovery.

As an initial matter Defendant’s request for judicial notice of three exhibits is GRANTED. Evid. Code § 452(d).

The parties seem to agree that the motion is governed largely by Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Ct. (1984) 162 Cal. App. 3d 686 and Avant! Corp. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 79 Cal. App. 4th 876.

Whether to grant this stay is left to the Court’s discretion. Id. at 882. In exercising that discretion the Court considers and balances the factors endorsed out in Avant!: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs 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.” Id. at 885.

Defendant relies largely on the fact that he is being prosecuted for the same acts that form the basis of this civil lawsuit. But in the Court’s view, that is not enough and Defendant does not articulate any particularized burden.

As is likely almost always the case, the first factor favors the plaintiffs. The incident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred a year and half ago and this case is already almost eight months old. There is no trial set in the criminal case, which includes serous charges, and no indication as to when the criminal matter might be resolved. Were Defendant to take the criminal matter to trial and lose and appeal, it could be years before the criminal matter is resolved. Again, as is likely almost always the case, the second factor favors the defendant, but “it is not unconstitutional to force a litigant to choose between invoking the fifth amendment in a civil case, thus risking a loss there, or answering the questions in the civil context, thus risking [] criminal [consequences].”

Id. The third factor slightly favors plaintiffs. While perhaps there will be additional discovery fights that would not occur were the case stayed, delay will negatively impact the Court’s docket and is inconsistent with policies favoring timely resolution of cases. The fourth factor appears inapplicable here. And the Fifth factor slightly favors Plaintiffs as it is unclear to the Court how proceeding could negatively impact the public’s interest in the criminal litigation.

July 6, 2026, LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR PAGE 25 Judge: HONORABLE DAVID A. SILBERMAN, DEPARTMENT 11 ________________________________________________________________________ Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and denies the motion.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must email Dept.11@sanmateocourt.org with a copy to all other parties by 4:00 p.m. stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, Counsel for the prevailing party shall prepare for the Court’s signature a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and by the California Rules of Court. Please note that Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) states in part “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order REPEATING VERBATIM the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be efiled only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the Court.