Preview
Earl. E. Conaway, III (SBN 256239)
EARL E. CONAWAY, III - A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
1320 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Tel: (805) 546-8797 | Fax: (888) 466-8702 Superior Court of California
earl@conawaylawfirm.com County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
9/12/2023 9:25 AM
Attorneys for Defendant, JESUS REYES By: Madelyn Mercer , Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
SANTA MARIA - COOK DIVISION
10 MARTHA E. RAMIREZ, an individual, Case No.: 22CV03495
i
Plaintiff, DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’
12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
vs. TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
13 ALTERNATIVE, FOR A
JESUS REYES, an individual; REBECCA PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING
14
REYES, an individual; and DOES 1 through RESOLUTION OF A RELATED
15 20, inclusive, CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
16 Defendants. THEREOF
17
(Filed Concurrently Declaration of Earl E.
18 Conaway, III in Support of Motion to Stay
Discovery, or, in the Alternative, for a
19 Protective Order Pending Resolution of a
Related Criminal Matter; [Proposed] Order)
20
21 Date: October 19, 2023
Time: 8:30 am.
22 Dept: 4
Judge: Hon. Jed Beebe
23
24
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
25
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 19, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as
26
27 the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, the Defendant Jesus Reyes (“Reyes”) will
28 and hereby does seek an order staying discovery directed to Reyes, or, in the alternative, for a
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 1
protective order preventing discovery directed toward Reyes pending resolution of an ongoing
and related criminal matter.
This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§128, 2017.020, 2019.030,
2023.030, 2025.420, 2030.090, and 2031.060, Evidence Code §940, the Fifth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution, Pacers, Inc. v. Superior
Court, 162 Cal.App3d 686 (1984), and additional precedent. A stay of discovery as to Reyes, or,
in the alternative, a protective order shielding Reyes from discovery in this action, will allow the
related criminal matter against Reyes to proceed to resolution and negate the need for Reyes to
10
assert his rights against self-incrimination in this civil action, to the extent necessary.
11
12 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and the attached Memorandum or Points
13 and Authorities, the Declaration of Earl E. Conaway, III, and the exhibits thereto, the records.
14
pleadings, and files herein, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at
15
the hearing of this matter.
16
17 Respectfully submitted,
18
19
Date: September 8, 2023
LALTW
a
20 EARL E. INAWAY, II
Attorney Defendant,
21
JESUS REYES
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 2
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
Through this Motion, Defendant Jesus Reyes (“Reyes”) seeks a stay of discovery again him
in this civil proceeding, or, in the alternative, a protective order shielding him from discovery in
this action, pending resolution of the related criminal case in the Santa Barbara County Superior
Court in which Reyes is a defendant - Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 21CR04181
(filed on July 1, 2021)'. This civil proceeding and the pending criminal case are both based on
the same alleged conduct of Reyes, and therefore Reyes will not be able to fully comply with
10
discovery in this proceeding and would potentially risk self-incrimination if civil discovery is
11
12 allowed to proceed and he is compelled to participate in depositions, produce documents, and/or
13 provide written answers to interrogatories and requests for admission. In addition, the interests
14
of judicial economy favor granting Reyes the requested relief, as the Court will be faced with a
15
veritable minefield of legal and Constitutional issues if discovery is allowed to proceed against
16
Reyes before the criminal matter had been resolved. Due to the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff
17
18 should this Motion be granted, and the danger of prejudice to Reyes if discovery proceeds without
19 Constitutional safeguards, the relevant interests of the parties weigh in favor of the Court granting
20
relief to Reyes.
21
Ml
22
Ml
23
24
25
26
27 ' Pursuant to Evidence Code §452, Reyes requests that this Court take judicial notice of Reyes’
related criminal case pursuant to its authority to take judicial notice of a record of “any court of this state.” (Cal.
28 Evid. Section 452, subd (d))
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 3
II, RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The civil action pending before this Court, Ramirez v. Jesus Reyes, et. al., Case No.
22CV03495, was originally filed by Plaintiff on or about September 13, 2022. (Declaration of
Earl E. Conaway, III (“Conaway Decl.”) { 2.) The Complaint alleges that on November 28, 2020,
Reyes entered Plaintiff's home and forcibly sexually assaulted Plaintiff. (Ibid.)
The Plaintiff in this lawsuit has reported Reyes to the police for alleged sexual assault, the
same alleged conduct at issue in the Complaint and subject of the pending criminal case against
Reyes.
10
On or about July 1, 2021, Reyes was charged by the Santa Barbara County District
1
12 Attorney with forcible rape and residential burglary, based on police reports filed by the Plaintiff
13 in this lawsuit. (Conaway Decl. 3.) The criminal investigation of Reyes, initiated by the Plaintiff
14
in this lawsuit, has become an active criminal case. Reyes is facing multiple felony charges for
15
alleged conduct which forms the centerpiece of Plaintiff's civil claims against him.
16
On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Reyes, consisting of a request to
17
18 take Reyes’ deposition, a Request for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories — General,
19 Special Interrogatories, and Request for Admission. (Conaway Decl. | 4.) The discovery
20
requests propounded by this Plaintiff include requests for information and documents related to
21
her alleged sexual assault, and alleged entry into Plaintiff's home, the subject of the criminal case
22
against Reyes (Ibid.) The aforementioned discovery requests seek information from Reyes which
23
24 could prejudice his defense in the criminal action and thus would directly conflict with Reyes’
25 right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the California and U.S. Constitutions. For
26
example, in the Request for Admission’s, Set One, the Plaintiff asks Reyes to admit he had
27
“nonconsensual physical intercourse with the Plaintiff.” (Id.)
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4
Ill. LEGAL ARGUMENT
Where, as here, a civil litigant faces criminal charges for the same conduct at issue in the
civil action, the Court should issue an order staying discovery in order to preserve the litigant’s
important right against self-incrimination, subject to balancing of interests of the parties and
public. (See Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal.App3d 686, 688 (1984) (Discovery stay
appropriate remedy where civil litigation faces criminal prosecution “involving the same facts as
the civil action.”)) c.f Brown v. Superior Court, 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 (1986) (“There is no
question that privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted by civil defendants who face
10
possible criminal prosecution based on the same facts as the civil action.”); see also Evid. Code
11
12 §940.)
13 A stay of discovery is within the broad powers of the court to promote judicial efficiency
14
and ensure the orderly administration of justice. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo, 33
15
Cal.App.4" 1484, 1489 (1995) (“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay
16
proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”); see also Civ. Proc.
7
18 Code §§ 128, 2017.020.) Further, the Court is empowered to “restrict the frequency or extent of
19 use of a discovery method” if, among other reasons, the discovery “is obtainable from some other
20
source that is more convenient” or the “discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into
21
account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake
22
in the litigation.” (Civ. Proc. Code §2019.030.)
23
24 When evaluating a party’s request to stay pending resolution of a parallel criminal
25 proceeding, courts consider the following factors: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding
26
expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to
27
plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 5
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.” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court,
79 Cal.App.4"" 876, 887 (2000).) All five factors favor Reyes and support the relief requested in
this Motion.
A. Reyes Rights Against Self-Incrimination Are Directly Implicated by the Near-
Total Overlap Between This Civil Case and the Parallel Criminal Case.
As demonstrated above, the allegations against Reyes in this civil action are identical to
10 the allegations of criminal conduct brought by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney against
11
Reyes. Reyes’ alleged sexual assault of Plaintiff at issue in this lawsuit is the same alleged sexual
12
assault for which Reyes is now facing criminal prosecution. There is no doubt that the “same or
13
related transactions” are at issue in both the civil and criminal cases, entitling Reyes “to a stay of
14
15 discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.” (Pacers, Inc., 162
16 Cal.App.3d at 690.)
V7
B. Reyes’ Interests Outweigh Interests of the Plaintiff.
18
Reyes’ interests against self-incrimination are paramount, and Plaintiff faces no prejudice
19
whatsoever in any delay which might result from the Court ordering a discovery stay pending the
20
21 conclusion of the related criminal case. The privilege against self-incrimination is fundamental,
22 and the scope of a witness’s privilege is to be “liberally construed” by the Court. (People v.
23
Williams, 43 Cal.4" 584, 613 (2008).) As stated succinctly by the court in Pacers, the seminal
24
case on this issue in California, “[aJn order staying discovery until expiration of the criminal
25
statue of limitations would allow real parties to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating petitioners’
26
27 difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” (Pacers, Inc., 163
28 Cal.App3d at 690.) The situation faced by Reyes in this case is even more compelling than the
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 6
situation faced by the defendants in Pacers, as Reyes is not just facing the potential of a criminal
prosecution, he already has been charged and is in the midst of one.
Plaintiff's civil case is in its infancy, with the operative complaint filed within the last
year. A trial date had not yet been set in this case, and discovery has not meaningfully even
commenced. To summarize, the civil case against Reyes remains in its preliminary stages.
In contrast, the criminal case against Reyes is progressing. The Santa Barbara County
District Attorney filed its charges against Reyes over two years ago, commencing in 2021.
Given that this civil action has already been filed, these is no concern about applicable
10
statutes of limitations expiring with respect to the Plaintiff's claims, nor is there concern regarding
1
12 the five-year deadline to bring an action to trial as stated in California Code of Civil Procedure
13 §583.310, because such deadline would toll until the stay against Reyes is lifted. (Civ. Proc. Code
14
§583.340.) Regardless of the outcome of the criminal matter, Plaintiff will still have a full
15
opportunity to pursue her civil claims against Reyes once his criminal case has concluded.
16
C. A Stay Will Preserve Judicial Economy.
17
18 Although there may be a non-prejudicial delay in Plaintiff's proceedings with her claims
19 against Reyes, such delay does not outweigh Reyes’ self-incrimination concerns, and would
20
preserve judicial economy by avoiding the tsunami of discovery-related motions should Reyes be
21
forced to assert his rights in response to each and every discovery request propounded by Plaintiff.
22
Further adding to the danger of wasted Court resources is the principle that when Reyes invokes
23
24 his privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery requests, he cannot, by law, be
25 punished for doing so, thereby effectively eliminating Plaintiff's and the Court’s ability to enforce
26
any discovery order through sanctions. (Spielbauer v. City of Santa Clara, 45 Cal.4" 704, 714
27
(2009).) The constitutional guarantee against compelled self-incrimination protects an individual
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 7
from being forced to testify against himself or herself in a pending criminal proceeding, but it
does more than that. It also privileges a person not to answer official questions in any other
proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where he or she reasonably believes the answers
might incriminate him or her in a criminal case. “One cannot be forced to choose between
forfeiting the privilege, on the one hand, or asserting it and suffering a penalty for doing so on the
other.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted), Evid. Code §913. Rather than wade through
the morass of discovery disputes and motion practice, the Court should, in the interests of judicial
economy, stay discovery as to Reyes, or, in the alternative, issue a protective order as to Reyes,
10
until the completion of his related criminal matter.
I
12 IV. CONCLUSION
13: For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for issuance of an order staying discovery
14
directed to Reyes, or, in the alternative, for a protective order preventing discovery directed
1S
toward Reyes pending resolution of an ongoing parallel criminal matter.
16
17
18
19
Respectfully submitted,
20
tA LW
21
22 Date: September 9, 2023
23
24
ch
EARLE. C
Attorney fi
JESUS REYES
AWAY. III
efendant,
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL
MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 8
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare:
Tam employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age
of18 years and not a party to this within action. My business address is: 1320 Osos Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, 93401. On the date set forth below, I served on all interested parties in
this action the foregoing documents described as:
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF;
10 DECLARATION OF EARL E. CONAWAY, III, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
1
STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER;
12 AND
13 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ MOTION TO STAY
DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
14
PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER;
15
in the manner as follows:
16
Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
17
Setareh Panah, Esq. SPanah@younessilaw.com
18 Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi AAguiniga@younessilaw.com
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2200 T: (213) 480-6200
19
Los Angeles, CA 90010 F: (213) 480-6201
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martha E. Ramirez
21 Vincent T. Martinez, Esq. VMartinez@twitchellandrice.com
Twitchell and Rice, LLP LLimone@twitchellandrice.com
22,
215 No. Lincoln Street T: (805) 925-2611
23 P.O. Box 520 F: (805) 925-1635
Santa Maria, CA 93456
24 Attorneys for Defendant, Rebecca Reyes
25 (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§1010.6(a)(2),
26 1010.6(e), and 1013(g), and/or California Rules of Court 2.251(b)(1)-(2), I transmitted a
copy of the aforementioned document(s) to each addressee above to the email address(es)
27
indicated.
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, MARTHA RAMIREZ’S COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - |
1 Zz (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the above is true and correct.
2
3 Executed on September 9, 2023, at San Luis Obispo, California.
Deborah W. Santana
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, MARTHA RAMIREZ’S COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 2
9/8/23, 3:00 PM Earl E. Conaway, Ill, Attorney at Law Mail - Ramirez v Reyes et al
4 Gmail Law Clerk
Ramirez v Reyes et al
1 message
Law Clerk Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 3:00 PM
To: SPanah@younessilaw.com, AAguiniga@younessilaw.com, VMartinez@twitchellandrice.com,
llimone@twitchellandrice.com
Cc: Earl Conaway
Good Afternoon Counsel,
Attached here please find Defendant, Jesus Reyes’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the alternative,
for a Protective Order pending resolution of a related Criminal Matter; Points and Authorities in Support Thereof,
Declaration of Earl E. Conaway, Ill, in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order
pending resolution of a related Criminal Matter; and
[Proposed] Order re: Defendant, Jesus Reyes’ Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order
pending resolution of a related Criminal Matter.
This matter has been set for hearing on October 19, 2023.
Should you experience any difficulty in accessing or viewing these documents, or have any questions or concerns in their
regard, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully,
Deborah W. Santana, NP
Paralegal to Earl E. Conaway, Ill.
EARL E, CONAWAY, Ill | A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
1320 Osos Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 934014
T: (805) 546-8797
F: (888) 466-8702
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This. electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the review
of the party to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and
in violation of State and/or Federal laws. If you have received this transmission in error, please
immediately contact the sender at (805) 546-8797 and delete from your system. Unintended
transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.
4 attachments
Reyes - 22CV03495 - [Proposed] ORDER re Mtn to Stay Disc.pdf
Ba 40K
Reyes - 22CV03495 - POS re Min to Stay Disc 09.08.23.pdf
a 442K
Reyes - 22CV03495 - Def Reyes Ntc of Mtn to Stay Disc or Prot Order 09.08.23 EXE.pdf
a 871K
Reyes - 22CV03495 - Dec of EEC Support Mtn to Stay Disc 09.08.23 EXE.pdf
a 2231K
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=cOfaf38 11 e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:1-430535080679626540&simp|=msg-a:13 142005530407353... 1
Preview
Earl. E. Conaway, III (SBN 256239) EARL E. CONAWAY, III - A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1320 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ELECTRONICALLY FILED Tel: (805) 546-8797 | Fax: (888) 466-8702 Superior Court of California earl@conawaylawfirm.com County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 9/12/2023 9:25 AM Attorneys for Defendant, JESUS REYES By: Madelyn Mercer , Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA SANTA MARIA - COOK DIVISION 10 MARTHA E. RAMIREZ, an individual, Case No.: 22CV03495 i Plaintiff, DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ 12 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION vs. TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE 13 ALTERNATIVE, FOR A JESUS REYES, an individual; REBECCA PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING 14 REYES, an individual; and DOES 1 through RESOLUTION OF A RELATED 15 20, inclusive, CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 16 Defendants. THEREOF 17 (Filed Concurrently Declaration of Earl E. 18 Conaway, III in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the Alternative, for a 19 Protective Order Pending Resolution of a Related Criminal Matter; [Proposed] Order) 20 21 Date: October 19, 2023 Time: 8:30 am. 22 Dept: 4 Judge: Hon. Jed Beebe 23 24 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 19, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as 26 27 the matter may be heard in the above-entitled court, the Defendant Jesus Reyes (“Reyes”) will 28 and hereby does seek an order staying discovery directed to Reyes, or, in the alternative, for a DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 1 protective order preventing discovery directed toward Reyes pending resolution of an ongoing and related criminal matter. This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§128, 2017.020, 2019.030, 2023.030, 2025.420, 2030.090, and 2031.060, Evidence Code §940, the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 15 of the California Constitution, Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal.App3d 686 (1984), and additional precedent. A stay of discovery as to Reyes, or, in the alternative, a protective order shielding Reyes from discovery in this action, will allow the related criminal matter against Reyes to proceed to resolution and negate the need for Reyes to 10 assert his rights against self-incrimination in this civil action, to the extent necessary. 11 12 This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and the attached Memorandum or Points 13 and Authorities, the Declaration of Earl E. Conaway, III, and the exhibits thereto, the records. 14 pleadings, and files herein, and upon such oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at 15 the hearing of this matter. 16 17 Respectfully submitted, 18 19 Date: September 8, 2023 LALTW a 20 EARL E. INAWAY, II Attorney Defendant, 21 JESUS REYES 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 2 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Through this Motion, Defendant Jesus Reyes (“Reyes”) seeks a stay of discovery again him in this civil proceeding, or, in the alternative, a protective order shielding him from discovery in this action, pending resolution of the related criminal case in the Santa Barbara County Superior Court in which Reyes is a defendant - Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 21CR04181 (filed on July 1, 2021)'. This civil proceeding and the pending criminal case are both based on the same alleged conduct of Reyes, and therefore Reyes will not be able to fully comply with 10 discovery in this proceeding and would potentially risk self-incrimination if civil discovery is 11 12 allowed to proceed and he is compelled to participate in depositions, produce documents, and/or 13 provide written answers to interrogatories and requests for admission. In addition, the interests 14 of judicial economy favor granting Reyes the requested relief, as the Court will be faced with a 15 veritable minefield of legal and Constitutional issues if discovery is allowed to proceed against 16 Reyes before the criminal matter had been resolved. Due to the lack of prejudice to Plaintiff 17 18 should this Motion be granted, and the danger of prejudice to Reyes if discovery proceeds without 19 Constitutional safeguards, the relevant interests of the parties weigh in favor of the Court granting 20 relief to Reyes. 21 Ml 22 Ml 23 24 25 26 27 ' Pursuant to Evidence Code §452, Reyes requests that this Court take judicial notice of Reyes’ related criminal case pursuant to its authority to take judicial notice of a record of “any court of this state.” (Cal. 28 Evid. Section 452, subd (d)) DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 3 II, RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURE The civil action pending before this Court, Ramirez v. Jesus Reyes, et. al., Case No. 22CV03495, was originally filed by Plaintiff on or about September 13, 2022. (Declaration of Earl E. Conaway, III (“Conaway Decl.”) { 2.) The Complaint alleges that on November 28, 2020, Reyes entered Plaintiff's home and forcibly sexually assaulted Plaintiff. (Ibid.) The Plaintiff in this lawsuit has reported Reyes to the police for alleged sexual assault, the same alleged conduct at issue in the Complaint and subject of the pending criminal case against Reyes. 10 On or about July 1, 2021, Reyes was charged by the Santa Barbara County District 1 12 Attorney with forcible rape and residential burglary, based on police reports filed by the Plaintiff 13 in this lawsuit. (Conaway Decl. 3.) The criminal investigation of Reyes, initiated by the Plaintiff 14 in this lawsuit, has become an active criminal case. Reyes is facing multiple felony charges for 15 alleged conduct which forms the centerpiece of Plaintiff's civil claims against him. 16 On August 28, 2023, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Reyes, consisting of a request to 17 18 take Reyes’ deposition, a Request for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories — General, 19 Special Interrogatories, and Request for Admission. (Conaway Decl. | 4.) The discovery 20 requests propounded by this Plaintiff include requests for information and documents related to 21 her alleged sexual assault, and alleged entry into Plaintiff's home, the subject of the criminal case 22 against Reyes (Ibid.) The aforementioned discovery requests seek information from Reyes which 23 24 could prejudice his defense in the criminal action and thus would directly conflict with Reyes’ 25 right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the California and U.S. Constitutions. For 26 example, in the Request for Admission’s, Set One, the Plaintiff asks Reyes to admit he had 27 “nonconsensual physical intercourse with the Plaintiff.” (Id.) 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 4 Ill. LEGAL ARGUMENT Where, as here, a civil litigant faces criminal charges for the same conduct at issue in the civil action, the Court should issue an order staying discovery in order to preserve the litigant’s important right against self-incrimination, subject to balancing of interests of the parties and public. (See Pacers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 162 Cal.App3d 686, 688 (1984) (Discovery stay appropriate remedy where civil litigation faces criminal prosecution “involving the same facts as the civil action.”)) c.f Brown v. Superior Court, 180 Cal.App.3d 701, 708 (1986) (“There is no question that privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted by civil defendants who face 10 possible criminal prosecution based on the same facts as the civil action.”); see also Evid. Code 11 12 §940.) 13 A stay of discovery is within the broad powers of the court to promote judicial efficiency 14 and ensure the orderly administration of justice. (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo, 33 15 Cal.App.4" 1484, 1489 (1995) (“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay 16 proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”); see also Civ. Proc. 7 18 Code §§ 128, 2017.020.) Further, the Court is empowered to “restrict the frequency or extent of 19 use of a discovery method” if, among other reasons, the discovery “is obtainable from some other 20 source that is more convenient” or the “discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into 21 account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake 22 in the litigation.” (Civ. Proc. Code §2019.030.) 23 24 When evaluating a party’s request to stay pending resolution of a parallel criminal 25 proceeding, courts consider the following factors: “(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding 26 expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to 27 plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 5 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.” (Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.App.4"" 876, 887 (2000).) All five factors favor Reyes and support the relief requested in this Motion. A. Reyes Rights Against Self-Incrimination Are Directly Implicated by the Near- Total Overlap Between This Civil Case and the Parallel Criminal Case. As demonstrated above, the allegations against Reyes in this civil action are identical to 10 the allegations of criminal conduct brought by the Santa Barbara County District Attorney against 11 Reyes. Reyes’ alleged sexual assault of Plaintiff at issue in this lawsuit is the same alleged sexual 12 assault for which Reyes is now facing criminal prosecution. There is no doubt that the “same or 13 related transactions” are at issue in both the civil and criminal cases, entitling Reyes “to a stay of 14 15 discovery in the civil action until disposition of the criminal matter.” (Pacers, Inc., 162 16 Cal.App.3d at 690.) V7 B. Reyes’ Interests Outweigh Interests of the Plaintiff. 18 Reyes’ interests against self-incrimination are paramount, and Plaintiff faces no prejudice 19 whatsoever in any delay which might result from the Court ordering a discovery stay pending the 20 21 conclusion of the related criminal case. The privilege against self-incrimination is fundamental, 22 and the scope of a witness’s privilege is to be “liberally construed” by the Court. (People v. 23 Williams, 43 Cal.4" 584, 613 (2008).) As stated succinctly by the court in Pacers, the seminal 24 case on this issue in California, “[aJn order staying discovery until expiration of the criminal 25 statue of limitations would allow real parties to prepare their lawsuit while alleviating petitioners’ 26 27 difficult choice between defending either the civil or criminal case.” (Pacers, Inc., 163 28 Cal.App3d at 690.) The situation faced by Reyes in this case is even more compelling than the DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 6 situation faced by the defendants in Pacers, as Reyes is not just facing the potential of a criminal prosecution, he already has been charged and is in the midst of one. Plaintiff's civil case is in its infancy, with the operative complaint filed within the last year. A trial date had not yet been set in this case, and discovery has not meaningfully even commenced. To summarize, the civil case against Reyes remains in its preliminary stages. In contrast, the criminal case against Reyes is progressing. The Santa Barbara County District Attorney filed its charges against Reyes over two years ago, commencing in 2021. Given that this civil action has already been filed, these is no concern about applicable 10 statutes of limitations expiring with respect to the Plaintiff's claims, nor is there concern regarding 1 12 the five-year deadline to bring an action to trial as stated in California Code of Civil Procedure 13 §583.310, because such deadline would toll until the stay against Reyes is lifted. (Civ. Proc. Code 14 §583.340.) Regardless of the outcome of the criminal matter, Plaintiff will still have a full 15 opportunity to pursue her civil claims against Reyes once his criminal case has concluded. 16 C. A Stay Will Preserve Judicial Economy. 17 18 Although there may be a non-prejudicial delay in Plaintiff's proceedings with her claims 19 against Reyes, such delay does not outweigh Reyes’ self-incrimination concerns, and would 20 preserve judicial economy by avoiding the tsunami of discovery-related motions should Reyes be 21 forced to assert his rights in response to each and every discovery request propounded by Plaintiff. 22 Further adding to the danger of wasted Court resources is the principle that when Reyes invokes 23 24 his privilege against self-incrimination in response to discovery requests, he cannot, by law, be 25 punished for doing so, thereby effectively eliminating Plaintiff's and the Court’s ability to enforce 26 any discovery order through sanctions. (Spielbauer v. City of Santa Clara, 45 Cal.4" 704, 714 27 (2009).) The constitutional guarantee against compelled self-incrimination protects an individual 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 7 from being forced to testify against himself or herself in a pending criminal proceeding, but it does more than that. It also privileges a person not to answer official questions in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where he or she reasonably believes the answers might incriminate him or her in a criminal case. “One cannot be forced to choose between forfeiting the privilege, on the one hand, or asserting it and suffering a penalty for doing so on the other.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted), Evid. Code §913. Rather than wade through the morass of discovery disputes and motion practice, the Court should, in the interests of judicial economy, stay discovery as to Reyes, or, in the alternative, issue a protective order as to Reyes, 10 until the completion of his related criminal matter. I 12 IV. CONCLUSION 13: For the foregoing reasons, good cause exists for issuance of an order staying discovery 14 directed to Reyes, or, in the alternative, for a protective order preventing discovery directed 1S toward Reyes pending resolution of an ongoing parallel criminal matter. 16 17 18 19 Respectfully submitted, 20 tA LW 21 22 Date: September 9, 2023 23 24 ch EARLE. C Attorney fi JESUS REYES AWAY. III efendant, 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF - 8 PROOF OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare: Tam employed in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California. I am over the age of18 years and not a party to this within action. My business address is: 1320 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401. On the date set forth below, I served on all interested parties in this action the foregoing documents described as: DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; 10 DECLARATION OF EARL E. CONAWAY, III, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 1 STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; 12 AND 13 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 PENDING RESOLUTION OF A RELATED CRIMINAL MATTER; 15 in the manner as follows: 16 Ramin R. Younessi, Esq. 17 Setareh Panah, Esq. SPanah@younessilaw.com 18 Law Offices of Ramin R. Younessi AAguiniga@younessilaw.com 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2200 T: (213) 480-6200 19 Los Angeles, CA 90010 F: (213) 480-6201 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Martha E. Ramirez 21 Vincent T. Martinez, Esq. VMartinez@twitchellandrice.com Twitchell and Rice, LLP LLimone@twitchellandrice.com 22, 215 No. Lincoln Street T: (805) 925-2611 23 P.O. Box 520 F: (805) 925-1635 Santa Maria, CA 93456 24 Attorneys for Defendant, Rebecca Reyes 25 (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§1010.6(a)(2), 26 1010.6(e), and 1013(g), and/or California Rules of Court 2.251(b)(1)-(2), I transmitted a copy of the aforementioned document(s) to each addressee above to the email address(es) 27 indicated. 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, MARTHA RAMIREZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - | 1 Zz (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. 2 3 Executed on September 9, 2023, at San Luis Obispo, California. Deborah W. Santana 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT, JESUS REYES’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF, MARTHA RAMIREZ’S COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL - 2 9/8/23, 3:00 PM Earl E. Conaway, Ill, Attorney at Law Mail - Ramirez v Reyes et al 4 Gmail Law Clerk Ramirez v Reyes et al 1 message Law Clerk Fri, Sep 8, 2023 at 3:00 PM To: SPanah@younessilaw.com, AAguiniga@younessilaw.com, VMartinez@twitchellandrice.com, llimone@twitchellandrice.com Cc: Earl Conaway Good Afternoon Counsel, Attached here please find Defendant, Jesus Reyes’ Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order pending resolution of a related Criminal Matter; Points and Authorities in Support Thereof, Declaration of Earl E. Conaway, Ill, in Support of Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order pending resolution of a related Criminal Matter; and [Proposed] Order re: Defendant, Jesus Reyes’ Motion to Stay Discovery, or, in the alternative, for a Protective Order pending resolution of a related Criminal Matter. This matter has been set for hearing on October 19, 2023. Should you experience any difficulty in accessing or viewing these documents, or have any questions or concerns in their regard, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, Deborah W. Santana, NP Paralegal to Earl E. Conaway, Ill. EARL E, CONAWAY, Ill | A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 1320 Osos Street San Luis Obispo, CA 934014 T: (805) 546-8797 F: (888) 466-8702 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This. electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and in violation of State and/or Federal laws. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender at (805) 546-8797 and delete from your system. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. 4 attachments Reyes - 22CV03495 - [Proposed] ORDER re Mtn to Stay Disc.pdf Ba 40K Reyes - 22CV03495 - POS re Min to Stay Disc 09.08.23.pdf a 442K Reyes - 22CV03495 - Def Reyes Ntc of Mtn to Stay Disc or Prot Order 09.08.23 EXE.pdf a 871K Reyes - 22CV03495 - Dec of EEC Support Mtn to Stay Disc 09.08.23 EXE.pdf a 2231K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=cOfaf38 11 e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:1-430535080679626540&simp|=msg-a:13 142005530407353... 1