Wroth et al v. City of Rohnert Park et al

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 23 Motion to Stay. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHRISTOPHER WROTH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 23

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-05339-JST

12
Before the Court is Defendants‟ motion to temporarily stay civil proceedings pending

13
14

completion of the criminal investigation into the alleged excessive force incident underlying this

15

civil action. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion to stay, effective until

16

April 2, 2018.

17

I.

18

BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Christopher Wroth and Marnie Wroth (“the Wroths”) are the parents of the

19

deceased Branch Wroth. ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. According to the Wroths, Branch was taken into police

20

custody and “[w]hile facedown and restrained he was tasered in the back approximately four

21

times.” Id. ¶ 10. They allege that “[a]s a result of said acts and omissions Branch Wroth died

22

while in the custody and under the control of Defendants Sittig-Wattson and Huot.” Id. ¶ 11. On

23

September 14, 2017, the Wroths sued Defendants under Section 1983. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 16-20.

24

Defendants include the City of Rohnert Park, Officer David Sittig-Wattson, and Officer

25

Sean Huot of the City of Rohnert Park Public Safety Department. According to Defendants, “[t]he

26

Law Enforcement Employee-Involved Fatal Incident Protocol (“the Protocol”) governs all officer-

27

involved fatal incidents in Sonoma County.” ECF No. 23 at 7. Defendants claim that the Protocol

28

was immediately invoked after Branch‟s death. Id. Under the Protocol, the Sonoma County

1

Sheriff‟s Department controls and manages the criminal investigation. Id. In December 2017, the

2

Sheriff‟s Department finished its investigation and forwarded the case to the Sonoma County

3

Office of the District Attorney. Id. “Under the Protocol, the District Attorney‟s Office will make

4

every reasonable effort to complete its review and either file charges or prepare a summary report

5

if no charges are filed within ninety (90) days of receiving the completed report . . . .” ECF No. 25

6

¶ 6. The District Attorney anticipates that the review will be completed in late March or early

7

April. ECF No. 25 ¶ 7.
Defendants now seek to temporarily stay the civil proceedings pending completion and

8
9

determination of the criminal proceedings. ECF No. 23 at 1. The Wroths oppose. ECF No. 26
at 1.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
A court has discretion to stay a civil case pending the completion of criminal proceedings

12
13

“when the interests of justice seem to require such action.” Keating v. Office of Thrift

14

Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

15

First, a court must consider “the extent to which the defendant‟s fifth amendment rights are

16

implicated.” Id. (quoting Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th

17

Cir. 1989)). Then, a court must balance the following factors:

18

(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.

19
20
21

22

Keating, 45 F.3d at 325 (citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903).
23
III.

ANALYSIS

24
A.
25
26

Defendants’ Fifth Amendment Rights

“A court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings „when the interests of justice
seem to require such an action.‟” Jones v. Conte, No. C 04-5312 SI, 2005 WL 1287017, at *1

27
(N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2005) (quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th
28
2

1

Cir.1995)). “[T]he strongest case for deferring civil proceedings until after completion of criminal

2

proceedings is where a party under indictment for a serious offense is required to defend a civil or

3

administrative action involving the same matter.” Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Dresser Indus., Inc.,

4

628 F.2d 1368, 1375–76 (D.C. Cir. 1980). .

5

Here, Defendants‟ Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated because there is a pending

6

criminal investigation by the Sonoma County Sheriff‟s Department and the District Attorney that

7

revolves around the same legal and factual issues as this civil case. ECF No. 23 at 14. Officer

8

Sittig-Watson and Officer Huot may have to choose between asserting their rights against self-

9

incrimination, “thereby inviting prejudice in the civil case, or waiving those rights, thereby
courting liability in the civil case.” Jones, 2005 WL 1287017, at *1 (internal quotation marks and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

citation omitted). If the officers exercise their Fifth Amendment rights, this may be used against

12

them as “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil

13

actions . . . .” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).

14

The Court recognizes that, for the moment, this risk is theoretical because the officers have

15

not yet been indicted. Defendants‟ Fifth Amendment rights are therefore not fully implicated. See

16

e.g Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 903 (citation omitted) (noting that “the case for staying civil

17

proceedings is a far weaker one when no indictment has been returned and no Fifth Amendment

18

privilege is threatened”); eBay, Inc. v. Digital Point Sols., Inc., No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT), 2010

19

WL 702463, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010) (citation omitted) (finding that the “potential

20

prejudice to a civil defendant facing a parallel criminal investigation is more remote than it is for

21

an indicted defendant . . . .”).

22

However, “courts will not categorically deny a stay “solely because the defendant has not

23

yet been indicted.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The officers still have

24

legitimate concerns about potential impending criminal prosecution. Given these concerns, “the

25

Court concludes that the Defendants have „significant, though not overwhelming‟ Fifth

26

Amendment interests that must be considered in light of its analysis of the other Keating factors.”

27

Id. at *4 (quoting Applied Materials, Inc. v. Semiconductor Spares, Inc., No. C95-20129-

28

RMW(EAI), 1995 WL 261451, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 1995)). Further, Defendants have not
3

1

asked for an indefinite stay, but have made a request for a temporary stay while the criminal

2

investigation is completed, lessening the prejudice to Plaintiffs. The Court finds that this factor

3

weighs in favor of a short stay.

4

B.

Plaintiffs’ Interest

5

The Wroths suggest that a delay in discovery will prejudice them. ECF No. 26 ¶ 6.

6

However, Defendants request a stay until the resolution of the criminal investigation. ECF No. 23

7

at 6. The Protocol suggests that the District Attorney‟s office completes its investigation within

8

ninety days of receiving the completed report from the Sheriff‟s Office. ECF No. 25 ¶ 6. The

9

District Attorney received the report in December 2017 and the District Attorney anticipates
finishing her review in late March or early April. ECF No. 25 ¶ 7. While the Wroths would be

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

prejudiced by a stay pending criminal proceedings without a concrete timeline, the Wroths will not

12

be prejudiced by a stay with a clear ending date. See eBay, 2010 WL 702463, at *6.

13

C.

Burden on Defendants

14

Without a stay, Defendants would experience discovery burdens. A stay can be warranted

15

when “broad civil discovery would unfairly expand the scope of criminal discovery beyond the

16

limits of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b).” S.E.C. v. Alexander, No. 10-CV-04535-

17

LHK, 2010 WL 5388000, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010). Instead of granting a stay to address

18

this burden, the Court could use “less drastic” methods, such as protective orders, to safeguard

19

Defendants‟ interests. See eBay, 2010 WL 702463, at *5. However, Defendants have only

20

requested a short stay. ECF No. 23 at 6. The risk of burdening Defendants with expanded

21

criminal discovery paired with a reasonably limited request to stay weighs in favor of granting

22

Defendants‟ motion.

23

D.

Additional Interests

24

The Court, nonparties, and public would also benefit from a temporary stay. The

25

resolution of the criminal matter may narrow the scope of civil discovery. This will promote

26

judicial efficiency and may benefit nonparties. See Douglas v. United States, No. C 03-04518 JW,

27

2006 WL 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) (noting that the results of a criminal trial may

28

save “some witnesses the time and cost of appearing at all”); Jones, 2005 WL 1287017, at *2
4

1

(finding that a stay will conserve judicial resources by allowing the investigation to resolve

2

common issues of fact and ensuring that civil discovery proceeds without Fifth Amendment

3

concerns).
The public has several relevant interests. First, “[t]he public has an interest in ensuring

4

that the criminal process is not subverted by ongoing civil cases.” Douglas, 2006 WL 2038375, at

6

*6 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Additionally, the public has an interest in

7

preserving the “public confidence in the enforcement scheme. . . .” of civil lawsuits. Keating, 45

8

F.3d at 326. However, the risk of eroding “public confidence in the enforcement scheme” is

9

reduced when the requested stay is limited to ninety days. Id. Because Defendants only request a

10

temporary stay, the interests of the Court, nonparties, and public also weigh in favor of granting a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

stay.
CONCLUSION

12

Defendants‟ motion to temporarily stay civil proceedings pending completion and

13
14

determination of criminal investigation is GRANTED. However, the “interests of justice” only

15

support a temporary stay with a clear expiration date. Id. at 324. Therefore, the motion to stay is

16

granted until either the criminal investigation is completed or until April 2, 2018, whichever

17

occurs first.1 The Court emphasizes that the stay will be lifted on April 2, 2018 even if the

18

criminal investigation is not complete. If the criminal investigation results in the filing of one or

19

more criminal complaints, Defendants may file another motion to stay for the Court‟s

20

consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

22

Dated: February 14, 2018
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The District Attorney received the report in December 2017. ECF No. 25 ¶ 7. The District
Attorney did not specify which date she received the report, but even assuming she did not receive
the report until December 31, 2017, the protocol would require her to make every reasonable
effort to complete the review and file charges or a summary report by Saturday March 31, 2017.
ECF No. 25 ¶ 6.
5