SALLMAN VS TRENCHERS WEST CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME SALLMAN VS MOTION FOR STAY OF CIVIL TRENCHERS WEST CVME2517483 PROCEEDINGS DURING PENDENCY OF CONSTRUCTION CO., CRIMINAL CHARGES INC. Tentative Ruling: Motion for limited Stay on discovery is granted as to defendant Arreola only. Defendant Pablo Arreola seeks a stay to all discovery in this matter due to his pending criminal matter. There is no blanket fifth amendment right to refuse to answer questions in civil proceedings. (Warford v. Medeiros (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1035.)

A civil court is not required to stay a civil proceeding pending the outcome of a criminal proceeding. (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876, 886.) However, the court has discretion to stay a civil proceeding or impose protective orders, when the interest of justice requires such action. (Id.) Several factors are looked at to determine whether a civil proceeding should be stayed pending the disputation of a parallel criminal matter: “(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 case, 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 887.)

In Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, the court held that a defendant in a civil action should not be penalized for asserting his Fifth Amendment rights and should not have to choose between defending himself in the civil action or forfeiting his defense in favor or protecting himself from possible criminal liability. (Pacers, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at 689.) The court noted Evidence Code section 940 excludes from discovery information which may tend to incriminate a party. (Pacers, supra, 162 Cal.App.3d at 688.) This principle has been construed to allow assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. (Id. at 689.)

Plaintiffs oppose a stay to all discovery in this matter. The Court agrees that such a stay is not warranted. While Arreola argues that it is necessary, he points to no authority that such a sweeping stay is justified. As discussed above, a stay in a civil matter is not required when there is a pending criminal matter. The other defendants are entities. No analysis or evidence has been done or provided to support such a sweeping stay. As such, the motion is denied as to this request.

This Court recognizes that there is a significant backlog in the Criminal Courts of Riverside County which could potentially drag out for a long period of time. This Court will issue the limited stay as to discovery pertaining to Defendant Arreola only. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on the events in the criminal matter, specifically events after the 9-28-26 hearing in criminal court. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, either party may seek relief from the stay based on the status of the criminal case. The Court could in the future lift, keep in place or potentially modify the conditions of the stay.