Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05339/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-05339-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER WROTH, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-05339-JST 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO STAY

Re: ECF No. 23

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

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

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

April 2, 2018.

I. BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Enforcement Employee-Involved Fatal Incident Protocol (“the Protocol”) governs all officerinvolved fatal incidents in Sonoma County.” ECF No. 23 at 7. Defendants claim that the Protocol 

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

Case 3:17-cv-05339-JST Document 29 Filed 02/14/18 Page 1 of 5
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

April. ECF No. 25 ¶ 7.

Defendants now seek to temporarily stay the civil proceedings pending completion and 

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

at 1. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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.

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

III. ANALYSIS

A. 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 

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

Case 3:17-cv-05339-JST Document 29 Filed 02/14/18 Page 2 of 5
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sittig-Watson and Officer Huot may have to choose between asserting their rights against selfincrimination, “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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an indicted defendant . . . .”). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:17-cv-05339-JST Document 29 Filed 02/14/18 Page 3 of 5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

weighs in favor of a short stay. 

B. Plaintiffs’ Interest

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

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

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

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

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 

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

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

C. Burden on Defendants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendants‟ motion.

D. Additional Interests

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:17-cv-05339-JST Document 29 Filed 02/14/18 Page 4 of 5
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

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

concerns).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stay. 

CONCLUSION

Defendants‟ motion to temporarily stay civil proceedings pending completion and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

consideration. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2018

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

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.

Case 3:17-cv-05339-JST Document 29 Filed 02/14/18 Page 5 of 5