Page 113 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025
P. 113

Geraldine Hughes -

                                    Once the right against self-incrimination has been invoked,
                           a Stay is not mandatory but rests within the sound discretion
                           of the Court. Fed. S&L Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899
                           (9th Cir. 1989). The Court of Appeals held that the privilege
                           against self-incrimination may be invoked not only by a crimi-
                           nal defendant, but also by parties or witnesses in a civil action.
                           However, while the privilege of a criminal defendant is abso-
                           lute, in a civil case a witness or party may be required to waive
                           the privilege or accept the civil consequence of silence if he
                           does exercise it. There is a wide range of civil sanctions that
                           may be imposed upon a civil litigant who invokes his or her
                           Fifth Amendment right. Although one cannot be penalized for
                           asserting the privilege against self-incrimination, one is held
                           accountable for the consequences that directly results from its
                           assertions.
                                  Defendant's opposition to the motion to compel argued that
                           his deposition should be continued until the threatened crimi-
                           nal prosecution is disposed of and until defendant's current
                           medical treatment is concluded.
                                  Code of Civil Procedure section 36 is mandatory and re-
                           quires that preference be given in actions such as the case at
                           hand when plaintiff is under the age of 14 years old.
                                   Motion to Compel Further Responses
                                   Mr. Cochran opposed Mr. Feldman's motion to compel
                           further responses to written discovery stating that "it will vio-
                           late Michael Jackson's constitutional rights." "That Michael
                           Jackson be given the same right to have his testimony heard
                           for the first time at trial without fear that the prosecution will
                           try to impeach his credibility." Mr. Cochran stated that, "the
                           law enforcement agency has sought and gained access to all
                           discovery in this action." He also opposed the request due to
                           it being overbroad, seeking information not related to plaintiff's
                           claim of sexual molestation, that the information sought was
                           protected by work product and attorney/client privilege, and
                           the request for financial information was premature. He also
                           contended that because of the changed circumstances, Michael



                           112
   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118