Opinion
SACV 22-1351JVS (ADSx)
10-20-2022
Antonio Lopez et al. v. City of Anaheim et al.
Present: The Honorable James V. Selna, U.S. District Court Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] Order Regarding Motion to Stay
Defendants Paul Delgado (“Delgado”), Brett Heitman (“Heitman”), Kenneth Weber (“Weber”), and Caitlin Panov (“Panov”) (collectively, “Officer Defendants”), filed a motion for temporary stay of discovery pending the California Department of Justice's (“California DOJ”) criminal investigation. Mot., Dkt. No. 24.
Plaintiffs, Antonio Lopez, individually; Johanna Lopez, individually; M.R., by and through his guardian ad litem, April Rodriguez, individually and as successor in interest to Brandon Lopez; B.L. and J.L., by and through their guardian ad litem Rachel Perez, individually and as successor in interest to Brandon Lopez; S.L., by and through his guardian ad litem, Rocio Flores, individually and as successor in interest to Brandon Lopez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), opposed. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 29. Officer Defendants replied. Reply, Dkt. No. 32.
I. Background
The following facts are taken from Officer Defendants' motion. Mot., Dkt. No. 24. Delgado, Heitman, Weber, and Panov are police officers with the City of Anaheim Police Department. Plaintiffs allege Officer Defendants violated Brandon Lopez's rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth Amendment arising from a fatal shooting in September 2021 of Brandon Lopez. Plaintiffs also bring claims against Defendants City of Santa Ana, City of Anaheim, Anaheim Police Department Chief David Valentin, and Santa Ana Police Department Chief Jorge Cisneros (collectively, “Municipal Defendants”). Municipal Defendants did not join in the motion.
The California DOJ is also investigating the shooting and death of Brandon Lopez pursuant to California Assembly Bill 1506. The investigation is currently “Under Investigation” but Officer Defendants allege the California DOJ has failed to provide any further updates. Mot., Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B. The investigation could result in “potential criminal liability.” Id. Given the California DOJ investigation, Officer Defendants seek a stay of discovery as to police officers Delgado, Heitman, Weber, and Panov. Officer Defendants do not seek a stay with respect to the Municipal Defendants.
II. Legal Standard
The Court has discretion “to stay a civil proceeding pending the completion or declination of a criminal investigation.” Grubbs v. Irey, 2008 WL 906246 at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008). See generally Keating v. Off, of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its own docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”).
The Court must determine that “the interests of justice seem to require such action.” Keating, 45 F.3d at 324. A court may consider: (1) a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights; (2) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (3) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (4) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (5) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; (6) the interest of the public in pending civil and criminal litigation. Id.; Fed. Savs. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989).
III. Discussion
A. Motion to Stay
1. Defendants' Fifth Amendment rights
Initially, the court must determine “the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights are implicated.” Keating, 45 F.3d at 324. “While a defendant in a criminal case may constitutionally assert [his or her] Fifth Amendment rights with no adverse consequence, a trier of fact in a civil case may draw an adverse inference from invocation of the Fifth Amendment.” Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir. 2000). “The status of the criminal proceeding is crucial, though not determinative, in a court's decision whether or not to stay the civil case. When ‘no indictment has been returned' and no criminal action is underway, the case for a stay is much weaker. The potential prejudice to a civil defendant facing a parallel criminal investigation is ‘more remote' than it is for an indicted defendant, and the delay to the plaintiff is ‘potentially indefinite.' At the same time, courts will not categorically deny a stay ‘solely because the defendant has not yet been indicted.'” eBay, Inc. v. Digit. Point Sols., Inc., 2010 WL 702463, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010) (internal citations omitted).
There is no pending indictment against the Officer Defendants. The California DOJ investigation is still underway. Mot., Dkt. No. 24, Ex. B. The investigation is being conducted by the California DOJ pursuant to the recently enacted Assembly Bill 1506 in 2020. Id. The California DOJ “is required to investigate all incidents of an officer-involved shooting resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state.” Id. Delgado, Heitman, Weber, and Panov could face criminal liability as a result of the investigation. See id. The California DOJ is currently conducting twenty-two other investigations. Id. The investigation has been underway for a year and the California DOJ has not provided any other updates except to acknowledge that the case is “Under Investigation.” Id. Nor is there any indication that Officer Defendants will actually be indicated.
District courts have differed in assessing a defendant's Fifth Amendment concerns when there is no criminal indictment. See eBay, Inc., 2010 WL 702463, at *4 (analyzing conflicting cases). This Court concludes, based on the overlap between the present civil case and the California DOJ investigation, and the potential for criminal liability, Officer Defendants have a “significant, though not overwhelming” Fifth Amendment interest. Id. (quotations and citation omitted); see also Pinnock v. Doe, 2014 WL 4679007, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014) (granting a ninety day stay based on a pending criminal investigation but lack of an indictment).
Plaintiffs rely on Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Brown (“IBM”) to argue Officer Defendants' Fifth Amendment rights are not implicated since no criminal charges are pending. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 29, at 6; IBM, 857 F.Supp. 1384 (C.D. Cal. 1994). But in IBM, the defendants sought to assert their Fifth Amendment rights during trial after they testified in a deposition. The court found a stay was not appropriate. Here, the situation is much different because the Officer Defendants seek a stay of discovery. If discovery were to proceed, Officer Defendants may face “the unpleasant choice of either testifying, or invoking the Fifth Amendment and risking an adverse inference in this action.” Id. at 1389. As the Court in IBM stated, “Refusing to stay a civil case while parallel criminal proceedings are pending is left to the sound discretion of the district court.” Id. at 1387.
The Officer Defendants Fifth Amendment interest will be considered alongside the remaining Keating factors.
2. Plaintiffs' interest in proceeding expeditiously with the litigation and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay
“Courts have recognized that a civil plaintiff has an interest in having [its] case resolved quickly.” ESG Cap. Partners LP v. Stratos, 22 F.Supp.3d 1042, 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citing S.E.C. v Loomis, 2013 WL 4543939, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2013)).
Plaintiffs argue they will be prejudiced by a stay because they will effectively be placed out of court. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 29, at 6 (quoting Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718, 723 (9th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiffs also argue they will be prejudiced by the potential loss of evidence or unavailability of witnesses. Id.
Plaintiffs in this case undoubtedly have a strong interest in having their case resolved quickly. Plaintiffs argue a stay may increase the risk of evidence becoming stale. Id. Here, the incident occurred just over a year ago. Moreover, Officer Defendants seek a stay of discovery as to police officers Delgado, Heitman, Weber, and Panov. Plaintiffs will not be prohibited from pursuing discovery from the Municipal Defendants, City of Santa Ana, City of Anaheim, Anaheim Police Department Chief David Valentin, and Santa Ana Police Department Chief Jorge Cisneros. Even though the claims against the cities and police chiefs focus on supervisor liability, municipal liability, and negligent training, Plaintiffs argue the “key issue in this case is whether the shooting was excessive and unreasonable.” Opp'n, Dkt. No. 29, at 1. But any potential loss of evidence is mitigated by the fact that the California DOJ is conducting a parallel criminal investigation into the shooting. Evidence is likely to be preserved through the California DOJ investigation. And because Officer Defendants do not seek a stay as to all Defendants, Plaintiffs may still pursue discovery from the Municipal Defendants.
Thus, Plaintiffs will not be unduly prejudiced by a stay.
3. The burden on Defendants
As discussed above, Officer Defendants have a “significant, though not overwhelming” Fifth Amendment interest.
Officer Defendants also argue that if discovery were to proceed, they may be forced to produce information subject to the federal law enforcement privilege. Mot., Dkt. No. 24, at 15-16. Plaintiffs argue there is no legal authority supporting Officer Defendants' position. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 32, at 9-10. Instead, Plaintiffs argue “Law enforcement agencies routinely turn over . . . documents related to the incident.” Id. Neither party cites sufficient authority supporting their positions. Moreover, Officer Defendants assertion of privilege is not yet ripe. Officer Defendants contend the law enforcement privilege “may [] apply.” The possibility of invoking the law enforcement privilege does not impose a burden on the Officer Defendants. If Officer Defendants find it necessary to invoke the privilege in the course of the litigation, they may do so. But this Court finds the mere possibility of needing to invoke the privilege does not weigh in favor of granting a stay.
Aside from the implications on the Officer Defendants' Fifth Amendment rights, there is no other relevant burden on Officer Defendants weighing in favor of a stay.
4. Convenience of the Court and judicial efficiency
Courts have recognized that this Keating factor may not favor granting a stay because as a general matter because “the court [has] an interest in clearing its docket.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903; eBay, 2010 WL 702463, at *3. “But the courts exist to mete out justice-not solely to clear out cases.” Pinnock, 2014 WL 4679007, at *4. Officer Defendants request a stay of discovery relating to Delgado, Heitman, Weber, and Panov. Plaintiffs may proceed with discovery with respect to the Municipal Defendants. Granting a stay will not put this case to a screeching halt.
This Court finds this factor neutral at best.
5. Interest of non-parties
Officer Defendants states “[i]t is unlikely that non-parties' interests will be adversely affected” by granting a stay. Mot., Dkt. No. 24, at 17; see also ESG Capital Partners LP, 22 F.Supp.3d at 1047 (finding this factor neutral when neither party identifies any relevant third party interests). Plaintiffs argue “non-parties” also includes the public who have an interest in the resolution of this case. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 29. The Court discusses the public's interest below.
This Court finds this factor neutral.
6. Interest of the public
Officer Defendants argue the public has a strong interest in a fair and fully litigated trial, in protecting and preserving the Officer Defendants' constitutional rights, and in a speedy resolution. Mot., Dkt. No. 24, at 17. Plaintiffs argue the public has an interest in the speedy resolution of the case. Opp'n, Dkt. No. 29, at 11.
The public certainly has a strong interest in the speedy resolution of civil matters. See Keating, 45 F.3d at 326. But the events of this case occurred just over a year ago. Officer Defendants argue the public's interest will be better served by imposing a stay while the California DOJ investigation proceeds. Mot., Dkt. No. 24, at 17. The Court acknowledges the California DOJ investigation is still underway but there is no indication as to when the investigation will be complete. This Court believes a ninety day stay will adequately balance the interests of the public and preserve the constitutional rights of the Officer Defendants. See Keating, 45 F.3d at 326 (“In such high visibility situations, it is especially necessary to guard the rights of defendants, and concern for [proceeding in a civil case] must not be allowed to override the individual defendant's due process rights.”); see also Pinnock, 2014 WL 4679007, at *4 (“The Court must therefore break out the scales of justice to balance the public's interest against [defendant's] weighty Fifth Amendment rights.”). Again, Officer Defendants do not request a stay as to all Defendants. Discovery may proceed as to the Municipal Defendants.
This factor does not weigh against granting a stay.
IV. Conclusion
This Court concludes that the Keating factors weigh in favor of a temporary stay.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Officer Defendants' motion to stay discovery as to Delgado, Heitman, Weber, and Panov for a ninety (90) day period. At the expiration of this stay, the parties may update the Court regarding the status of the California DOJ investigation and, if necessary, request a further stay of this civil case.
The Court finds that oral argument would not be helpful in this matter. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
IT IS SO ORDERED.