Lawzilla Additional Information: Plaintiff is represented by attorney Donald Magilligan.

18-CIV-01355 COLLEEN KAY CUDD, ET AL. VS. TIFFANY LI, ET AL.

COLLEEN KAY CUDD TIFFANY LI
ALISON E. CORDOVA CAITLIN T. DIMAGGIO

TIFFANY LI’S MOTION TO STAY CIVIL DISCOVERY AGAINST DEDEFENANT LI TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Tiffany Li’s motion to stay discovery with respect to Defendant Li is GRANTED. Discovery is hereby STAYED with respect to Defendant Li pending completion of proceedings in the related criminal action, Case No. 16SF005932-C.

While Plaintiffs may be able to propound some discovery requests that may not impinge on Defendant’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, the court finds no benefit in permitting only some limited discovery to proceed against Defendant Li. The piecemeal determination of which particular discovery requests or categories of information are discoverable will necessarily result in additional expenditure of judicial resources, as well as the resources of both parties. Further, the near certainty that the criminal proceedings will uncover information useful to the parties further indicates that allowing discovery to proceed against Defendant Li in this civil matter, before resolution of the criminal proceedings, will also result in a waste of resources. Plaintiff has not demonstrated any significant prejudice that is likely to result from the stay. Ultimately, the court finds that Defendant Li’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination and the interests in preserving the resources of the court, as well as the parties, outweigh any potential prejudice to Plaintiffs’ interests in preserving evidence and obtaining a speedy resolution of this matter.

Both parties cite to Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal. App. 3d 686 (Ct. App. 1984), a case in which the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s decision refusing to postpone discovery until after the statute of limitations had run on related criminal charges and ordering the trial court “to stay petitioners’ depositions until after January 22, 1986.” With respect to this decision, Plaintiffs claim as follows:

On the facts of Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 CaApp.3d 686, the appropriate remedy was staying the civil case until the criminal investigation concluded. However, Pacers is in no way analogous to the case before this Court. The primary reason? The question before the Pacers’ court was whether to stay a civil trial until after the statute of limitations on potential criminal charges had run. Here, the question is whether to stay all civil discovery until after a criminal trial and appeal occur. These are much different questions. Defendant seems to ignore that in Pacers, discovery occurred and was completed – all the way up to the point of trial – before the court ordered a stay.

[Opposition, p.4 (emphasis in original).]

Plaintiffs misrepresent the facts in Pacers, and do so without any pinpoint cites supporting their version of the facts. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ characterization, as noted above, the appeals court ordered the trial court “to stay petitioners’ depositions.” Id., 162 Cal. App. 3d at 691. Indeed, the opinion notes that “An order staying discovery until expiration of the criminal statute of limitations would allow real parties to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating petitioners’ difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” Id., at 690. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ assertions that “The question before the Pacers’ court was whether to stay a civil trial” and “in Pacers, discovery occurred and was completed – all the way up to the point of trial – before the court ordered a stay” are baseless and misleading.

Further, as noted by Defendant Li, the petitioners in Pacers faced only the prospect of criminal prosecution. The rationale of Pacers applies to the facts of the present case with greater force, where the threat of criminal prosecution is not merely hypothetical because criminal charges have been filed and a trial is pending.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

LINE: 4 18-CIV-01355 COLLEEN KAY CUDD, ET AL. VS. TIFFANY LI, ET AL.

COLLEEN KAY CUDD TIFFANY LI
ALISON E. CORDOVA CAITLIN T. DIMAGGIO

PLAINITIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES FROM DEFENDANT TIFFANY LI CCP 2030.300 TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel further discovery responses from Defendant Li is DENIED. Discovery against Defendant Li is STAYED pending completion of proceedings in the related criminal action, Case No. 16SF005932-C.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

LINE: 10 18-CIV-01355 COLLEEN KAY CUDD VS. TIFFANY LI, ET AL.

COLLEEN CUDD OLIVIER ADELLA
ALISON E. CORDOVA DEK KETCHUM

DEFENDANT ADELLA’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Adella’s motion for a protective order is GRANTED. Defendant Adella’s time to respond to Defendant Li’s first set of interrogatories, RFA’s and RFPD’s is continued pending completion of proceedings in the related criminal action, Case No. 16SF005932-C.

Defendant Li opposes the motion only to the extent her motion for a stay of discovery is denied. The court has concluded, however, that the motion for a stay should be granted. It is not clear how Plaintiffs have standing to oppose Defendant Adella’s motion for a protective order, since they did not propound the discovery at issue. In any event, the motion is granted for the reasons indicated in the court’s order granting Defendant Li’s motion for a stay of discovery against her in these proceedings.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Defendant Adella shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court’s ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.