JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2024 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendant and Cross-Defendant Bradley Earl Reger’s (“Reger”) motion to stay discovery is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises from alleged sexual abuse inflicted upon minors by Reger. Fourteen John Doe Plaintiffs filed this action on November 20, 2023, against twenty-one defendants. Plaintiffs allege Reger’s abuse was facilitated by numerous entities and individuals who possessed knowledge of his misconduct, permitted him to access the minors who would become his victims, and engaged in a conspiracy to facilitate and conceal Reger’s misconduct, resulting in the sexual abuse of the Plaintiffs.

On July 20, 2023, the criminal charges against Reger were filed for, inter alia, sexual abuse of minors. Plaintiffs have served Reger with discovery.

Reger now moves to stay all discovery against him on the grounds that he “will be forced to exercise [his] 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and therefore any attempt to obtain meaningful discovery from him while criminal charges are pending would be a waste of time for all concerned.” (Motion, 3:10-13.)

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that a blanket stay on discovery is improper as not every interrogatory or request will implicate his 5th Amendment rights. Plaintiffs suggest that the proper course is for Reger to assert his objection, where applicable, and then, if disputed, for the Court to rule on the objection.

"In this case [the Court is] asked to consider three competing interests: (1) that of the defendant who [anticipates invoking] his privilege against self-incrimination during discovery in civil litigation to avoid exposure to criminal prosecution; (2) that of the civil plaintiff who seeks to complete discovery without being unduly prejudiced if the defendant who invoked the privilege during discovery later waives it and testifies at trial; and (3) that of the justice system and the court in fairly and expeditiously disposing of civil cases." (Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 299, 304-305.)

In Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 686, 690, the Court stated "when both civil and criminal proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, an objecting party is generally entitled to a stay of discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.'" The court held this applies even where the defendant is not a criminal defendant but is threatened with criminal prosecution, as permitting "prosecutors to monitor the civil proceedings hoping to obtain incriminating testimony from petitioners through civil discovery would not only undermine the Fifth Amendment privilege but would also violate concepts of fundamental fairness." (Ibid.) However, "a

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2024 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 54

civil defendant does not have the absolute right to invoke the privilege against selfincrimination." (Fuller v. Superior Court, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at 305; Alvarez v. Sanchez (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 709, 712.) Whether the privilege against selfincrimination may properly be invoked as to such discovery is a question for the court to decide based on the particularities of individual discovery requests. (Fuller v. Superior Court, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 305 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for protective order precluding depositions, or staying deposition until the criminal statute of limitations expired because the court could not deternine the applicablity of the 5th Amendment privilege when the depositions had not gone forward.)

Here, it is undisputed that criminal charges have been brought against Reger. If the Court denies the stay, it is likely that Reger will be required to choose between responding to discovery to fully defend himself and invoking the Fifth Amendment regarding certain discovery. Indeed, the Court has reviewed the discovery already propounded on Reger by Plaintiffs, and much of the discovery implicates Reger’s Fifth Amendment rights and could possibly 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, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at 308.) (See Declaration of Steven Derby, Exs. B-D.)

As this request for stay is only for discovery propounded on Reger, and not on any of the other parties, the Court agrees with Reger that a stay is warranted.

Accordingly, Reger’s motion to stay discovery all discovery propounded on him is GRANTED. This stay does not apply to discovery propounded on any other parties or the issuance of third-party subpoenas.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsels and advise counsels of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsels prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2024 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 54

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012006: JOHN NDJ DOE, et al. vs CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/17/2024 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 54

or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.