Opinion ID: 2351228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Determining how to proceed in response to a civil litigant's request for accommodation of his or her privilege

Text: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked in both criminal and civil proceedings. Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 805, 97 S.Ct. 2132, 53 L.Ed.2d 1 (1977). Exercise of the privilege may not be penalized. Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S. 511, 515, 87 S.Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967). Nonetheless, an invocation is not a substitute for relevant evidence and therefore, the invoking party is not freed from adducing proof in support of a burden which would otherwise have been his. United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752, 758, 761, 103 S.Ct. 1548, 75 L.Ed.2d 521 (1983). Stated differently, [a] party who asserts the privilege against self-incrimination must bear the consequence of lack of evidence. U.S. v. Taylor, 975 F.2d 402, 404 (7th Cir.1992). Thus, it is well-settled that a claim of privilege will not prevent an adverse finding or even summary judgment if the litigant does not present sufficient evidence to satisfy the usual evidentiary burdens in the litigation. U.S. v. 4003-4005 5th Ave., Brooklyn, NY, 55 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 1995). We note, however, that courts must be mindful that because the privilege is constitutionally protected, they must carefully balance the interests of the party claiming protection against self-incrimination and the adversary's entitlement to equitable treatment. Graystone Nash, 25 F.3d at 192. Because we have not previously had the occasion to elaborate upon the various considerations that may, in certain circumstances, be relevant to striking this balance, we turn to guidance from federal caselaw. Federal courts generally begin their analysis of a request for accommodation by examining the nature of the invocation. See, 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d at 84. Where the invoking party makes a timely request for accommodation of a legitimate self-incrimination concern, courts should explore all possible measures to accommodate the privilege. Id. If the invoking party attempts to withdraw his or her invocation of the privilege, the manner and timing of the attempt becomes another important consideration. Id. at 84-85. Notably, an attempted withdrawal at the last minute of a proceeding strongly indicates that the invoking party is abusing his or her privilege in order to gain an unfair advantage. Id. at 85. In such a case, it may be appropriate for the trial court to take severe remedial measures, such as preventing the invoking party from presenting material previously claimed to be protected by the privilege. Id. at 86. Next, federal caselaw instructs that the nature of the civil proceeding is often another significant consideration. Id. at 84. For example, a special effort to accommodate the privilege may be warranted where the defendant faces parallel civil and criminal proceedings brought by different governmental entities arising from the same set of facts. See Graystone Nash, 25 F.3d at 193-94 (Courts must bear in mind that when the government is a party in a civil case and also controls the decision as to whether criminal proceedings will be initiated, special consideration must be given to the plight of the party asserting the Fifth Amendment.). In such a case, the most appropriate manner in which to proceed in response to a timely request for accommodation of the privilege might be to grant a stay of the civil proceeding until the criminal matter is concluded. S.E.C. v. Zimmerman, 854 F.Supp. 896, 899 (N.D.Ga.1993). Finally, the extent of prejudice that the opposing party will incur if remedial action is not taken frequently becomes a dispositive consideration. See, e.g., 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d at 84. Extensive remedial measures generally may be taken where the opposing party would otherwise suffer substantial prejudice. Id. at 87; see Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir.1979) (trial courts are free to fashion whatever remedy is required to prevent unfairness). In sum, depending on the particular circumstances involved in a given case, a wide range of remedial measures may be taken when balancing the interests of the invoking party and the opposing party's right to fair treatment. See 4003-4005 5th Ave., 55 F.3d at 84 n. 6 (What serves as an appropriate procedure for accommodating the interests of the party asserting the Fifth Amendment, while at the same time respecting opposing parties' right to fair treatment within the litigation, will necessarily vary from case to case.); United States v. U.S. Currency, 626 F.2d 11, 16 (6th Cir.1980) (explaining that a flexible approach is optimal because the trial court is in the best position to know what measures will balance the competing interests involved). With the foregoing principles in mind, we consider whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to permit Francis to withdraw his invocation or in denying his request to reopen discovery. [3]