The Estate of Elisa Serna v. County of San Diego

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THE ESTATE OF ELISA SERNA, et Case No. 20cv2096-LAB-MSB 11 al., ORDER: 12 Plaintiffs, 1) GRANTING IN PART AND 13 v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STAY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al. [Dkt. 36]; and 15 Defendants. 2) GRANTING IN PART AND

16 DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 17 FILE ANSWER [Dkt. 38] 18 19 Five plaintiffs brought this action seeking relief for the death of Elisa 20 Serna at San Diego County’s Las Colinas Detention Facility: Serna’s estate 21 (the “Estate”); her widower, Brandon Honeycutt; her minor child, S.H., 22 through her alleged guardian ad litem, Paloma Serna; and her parents, 23 Michael and Paloma Serna. After Plaintiffs initiated the action, one 24 defendant, Danalee Pascua, was charged with involuntary manslaughter in 25 connection with Serna’s death. Pascua moved to stay this action pending 26 resolution of her criminal case. (Dkt. 36). (Dkt. 43). Plaintiffs oppose the 27 request for a blanket stay, contending that any prejudice could be avoided 1 six-month stay applicable only to discovery from Pascua. (Dkt. 40). Three 2 defendants—Coast Correctional Medical Group, Friederike von Lintig, M.D., 3 and Mark O’Brien (the “Opposing Defendants”)—oppose a stay insofar as it 4 would prevent them from receiving initial disclosures, pointing to their need 5 for records held by the County and Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 41). And five other 6 defendants—the County of San Diego, William Gore, Barbara Lee, Lorna 7 Roque, and Hazel Camama (the “Joining Defendants”)—join in Pascua’s 8 request “for the same reasons articulated [in that request],” but there is 9 nothing to suggest that any of them have been criminally charged. (Dkt. 43). 10 Courts have discretion to stay civil proceedings in the interest of justice 11 and to avoid substantial prejudice to the rights of a defendant while related 12 criminal proceedings are pending. Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 13 F.3d 322, 324 (1995). “The decisionmaker should consider the extent to 14 which the defendant’s [F]ifth [A]mendment rights are implicated,” as well as: 15 “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation 16 or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a 17 delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may 18 impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management 19 of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of 20 persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in 21 the pending civil and criminal litigation.” Id. at 324–25 (cleaned up) (citing 22 Fed. Sav. & Loan Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902–03 (9th Cir. 1989)). 23 The progress of this action while Pascua’s criminal charges are 24 pending strongly implicates her Fifth Amendment right against self- 25 incrimination. Plaintiffs’ civil claims and the criminal charges are undisputedly 26 based on the same alleged conduct, so requiring Pascua to publicly defend 27 the civil action or to face the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’s broader discovery obligations may interfere with that Fifth Amendment right. See 1 Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 2 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 993, 101 S.Ct. 529, 66 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). 3 But protecting Pascua’s Fifth Amendment rights doesn’t require 4 staying the civil action in its entirety against all eleven Defendants, and the 5 Joining Defendants don’t identify any interest of their own that warrants a 6 stay. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ proposed solution—permitting 7 Pascua to file her Answer to the Second Amended Complaint under seal and 8 staying discovery from her for six months—adequately protects both 9 Pascua’s Fifth Amendment rights and other parties’ interests in an efficient 10 resolution. It further finds that, although there is a presumption in favor of 11 public access to court records, see Kamakana v. City and County of 12 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), the public’s interest is 13 outweighed by the prejudice Pascua would suffer from being required to file 14 a public response to the pleading in this action while her criminal case is 15 pending. It therefore ORDERS: 16 1) The Motion for an Extension of Time to File an Answer to the 17 Second Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 38), is GRANTED IN PART AND 18 DENIED IN PART. Defendants Camama, County of San Diego, Gore, Lee, 19 Pascua, and Roque must file a response to the Second Amended Complaint 20 no later than May 11, 2022; 21 2) Pascua may file her response to the Second Amended 22 Complaint under seal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) (court may, for good cause, 23 issue a protective order). No later than seven days after any judgment in 24 Pascua’s criminal case becomes final, Pascua is ORDERED to file in this 25 action a notice of that judgment, referencing this Order. Once that notice is 26 filed, the Court intends to unseal Pascua’s response to the Second Amended 27 Complaint; 1 3) Discovery from Pascua is STAYED until October 27, 2022. 2|| Pascua may seek an extension of this stay from Magistrate Judge Berg or 3|| any magistrate judge assigned to this case on or after September 27, 2022, 4} in the event that her criminal case has not resulted in a final judgment by that 5|| earlier date. Any such motion must inform the Court of any upcoming 6|| scheduled trial or hearing dates in the criminal case. Any party may file a 7 || motion seeking to lift the stay once that case has resulted in a final judgment. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 27, 2022 (aus 4. f Zul on. Larry A. Burns 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28