Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01145/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01145-6/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE D HARBERT, ANNE KRAJEWSKIHARBERT

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ROBERT PRIEBE, et al.

Defendant. /

No. C-06-01145 WHA (EDL)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE ANSWERS AND

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER STAYING

DISCOVERY

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion requesting an order (1) striking deposition testimony in

order to substitute an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and (2)

staying discovery pending the outcome of a motion to stay proceedings. After full consideration of

the parties’ submissions, and finding the matter appropriate for a decision without a hearing, the

Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.

The privilege against self-incrimination “is not a self-executing mechanism; it can be

affirmatively waived, or lost by not asserting it in a timely fashion.” Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S.

449, 466 (1975). If the privilege is not invoked at the time the question is asked, it is lost by waiver. 

Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 427 (1983); see also United States v. Unruh, 855 F.2d 1363,

1374 (9th Cir. 1987) (A failure to invoke the privilege waives a later claim of privilege). Silence

constitutes a waiver of the privilege which “could not be undone after the fact.” Cloyd v. Kramer,

1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17362 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Here, Plaintiff Harbert failed to assert the privilege

at the time the questions were asked in deposition. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to strike Plaintiff

Harbert’s testimony to allow substitution of the assertion of privilege is DENIED.

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 82 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated good cause for the Court to issue a protective order. 

Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to Stay the Action would also stay discovery, if granted. Plaintiffs’

separate Motion for a Protective Order, which seeks to stay discovery before resolution of the

Motion to Stay, is premature and possibly superfluous. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’

request for a Protective Order. While the Motion to Stay is pending, Plaintiffs may lessen the

burden of discovery by withdrawing the deposition notices Plaintiffs served on others, but must

appear at deposition if noticed by Defendants. Plaintiff Harbert’s deposition has not been

completed. If Defendants re-notice the remainder, Plaintiff Harbert may assert his Fifth Amendment

privilege on a question-by-question basis if and as appropriate, to the extent it has not been waived. 

Plaintiffs’ Reply contains a new matter that is not properly the subject of this motion. The

Court declines to take up the matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2007 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01145-WHA Document 82 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 2