JONES v. CONTE

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. C 04-5312 SI.

Motions

Motion to stay : Granted Defendant

Judges

Susan Yvonne Illston

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Court is presiding over two related cases involving defendant Victor Conte. The first is a criminal case, United States v. Victor Conte, et al., CR 04-0044 SI, which involves allegations of unlawful distribution of performance-enhancing drugs. While under indictment in that criminal case, Conte made public statements concerning performance-enhancing drugs and professional athletes, including plaintiff Marion Jones. Subsequently, on December 15, 2004, Jones filed a civil complaint alleging defamation and tortious interference with business relations against Conte. The Court recognized the civil case as related to the pending criminal matter and ordered the cases related. Defendant then moved to stay the civil proceedings pending resolution of the criminal case.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Court should grant a stay of the civil proceedings pending resolution of the related criminal case involving the same defendant and underlying facts.
How the Court should weigh the factors relevant to staying civil litigation in the context of a parallel criminal proceeding, including the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights, plaintiff’s interest and prejudice, judicial efficiency, third-party interests, and public interest.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

Requests a stay of the civil case until the criminal case is resolved to protect his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.
Contends that proceeding with civil discovery could force him to choose between asserting his Fifth Amendment rights and facing adverse inference or waiving those rights and risking liability.

Plaintiff's Arguments

Argues that defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights are not implicated because he has already made public statements on the subject.
Claims that a stay would prejudice her by delaying resolution of harms related to endorsement, sponsorship, and athletic eligibility.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995)	Discretion to stay civil proceedings when justice requires; factors to consider in deciding stay in face of parallel criminal case.	Guided the Court’s multi-factor analysis balancing defendant’s rights, plaintiff’s interests, judicial efficiency, third-party and public interests.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368 (D.C. Cir. 1980)	Supports deferring civil proceedings where defendant is under indictment for serious offense involving same matter.	Supported the Court’s finding that a stay was appropriate given the overlap between civil and criminal matters.
Federal Trade Commission v. J.K. Publications, Inc., 99 F.Supp.2d 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2000)	Consideration of Fifth Amendment waiver when defendant has submitted sworn testimony in civil case.	Distinguished because defendant here had not submitted sworn testimony; thus, full Fifth Amendment protection remained.
IBM Corp. v. Brown, 857 F.Supp. 1384 (C.D. Cal. 1994)	Similar to J.K. Publications regarding waiver of Fifth Amendment rights through sworn testimony.	Distinguished on similar grounds; defendant had not waived Fifth Amendment privilege.
United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1979)	Fifth Amendment waiver is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs.	Supported the Court’s conclusion that defendant retains Fifth Amendment protections in the civil case.
Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello, 218 F.R.D. 72 (W.D.N.Y. 2003)	Explains the dilemma faced by defendants in civil cases parallel to criminal cases regarding self-incrimination and prejudice.	Used to justify the stay to avoid forcing defendant to choose between asserting rights and risking prejudice or waiving rights and risking liability.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court applied the Keating factors to determine whether to grant a stay of the civil proceedings pending the resolution of the related criminal case. It found that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights were strongly implicated because he had not yet submitted sworn testimony in the civil case, preserving his right against self-incrimination. The Court distinguished plaintiff’s reliance on cases where defendants had waived these protections by testifying. The Court recognized that proceeding with civil discovery could prejudice the defendant by forcing an untenable choice between asserting the Fifth Amendment and suffering adverse consequences or waiving it and risking civil liability.

Regarding plaintiff’s interest, the Court acknowledged potential prejudice from delay but found that monetary damages could adequately remedy those harms, lessening the need to proceed immediately. The Court also considered judicial efficiency, concluding that a stay would conserve resources by resolving common factual issues in the criminal case first. Lastly, the Court found the public interest favored a stay because the integrity of the criminal process takes precedence over the civil litigation.

Balancing these factors, the Court determined that a temporary stay was warranted until the criminal case resolves or until a specified date, after which the parties must confer with the Court to discuss further proceedings.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED the defendant’s motion and STAYED the civil case pending resolution of the criminal case United States v. Victor Conte, CR 04-0044 SI, or until October 21, 2005, whichever occurs first. The April 22, 2005 hearing was vacated.

The direct effect is a temporary suspension of the civil litigation to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights and promote judicial efficiency. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but applies established principles regarding stays in parallel criminal and civil proceedings.

Show full summary ...

MARION JONES, Plaintiff, v. VICTOR CONTE, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY AND VACATING APRIL 22, 2005 HEARING DATE

SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds that defendant's motion to stay may be determined without oral argument. Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant's motion for stay and VACATES the April 22, 2005 hearing date.

BACKGROUND

This Court currently has two cases involving Victor Conte pending before it. United States v. Victor Conte, et al., CR 04-0044 SI, is a multi-defendant criminal case regarding allegations of unlawful distribution of performance-enhancing drugs. While under indictment in the criminal case, Conte made a series of statements in the print and television media involving performance-enhancing drugs and professional athletes, including Marion Jones. As a result, on December 15, 2004 Jones ("plaintiff") filed a complaint alleging defamation and tortious interference with business relations against Conte ("defendant"). In January, 2005, plaintiff filed a Notice of Related Case stating that her civil suit was related to United States v. Victor Conte. The Court agreed and ordered the cases related.

Defendant now brings a motion to stay the civil case until the resolution of the pending criminalmatter.

DISCUSSION

A court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings "when the interests of justice seem to require such an action."Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). The decision whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of a parallel criminal proceeding should be determined based on the circumstances and competing interests involved in the case. Id. The court should consider the following factors: 1) the extent to which the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights are implicated; 2) the interest of the plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation and the potential prejudice to plaintiff of a delay; 3) the convenience of the court and the efficient use of judicialresources; 4) the interests of third parties; and 5) the interests of the public. Id. at 324-25.

The Court finds that the factors establish that a temporary stay is appropriate in the pending civil action. "[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." Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375-76 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Both the civil and criminal cases arise from defendant's alleged involvement in the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs, as the veracity of his statements regarding plaintiff's actions directly relate to his involvement with the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs.

Plaintiff argues that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights will not be implicated if the civil case continues because defendant has already issued public statements about the matter. Plaintiff's argument relies on Federal Trade Commission v. J.K. Publications, Inc., 99 F.Supp.2d 1176 (C.D. Cal. 2000) and IBM Corp. v. Brown, 857 F.Supp. 1384 (C.D. Cal. 1994). However, in both of those cases defendants had already submitted sworn testimony in the civil matter, which minimized the remaining Fifth Amendment protection they could assert. J.K. Publications, Inc., 99 F.Supp.2d at 1199; I.B.M. Corp., 857 F.Supp. at 1390. In the current case, defendant has not submitted deposition testimony or sworn statements in any "proceeding"; therefore, defendant retains full protection under the Fifth Amendment.See United States v. Licavoli, 604 F.2d 613, 623 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege is limited to the "particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs"). The Court finds that a stay is proper because "[i]f discovery moves forward, [the] defendant will be faced with the difficult choice between asserting [his] right against self-incrimination, thereby inviting prejudice in the civil case, or waiving those rights, thereby courting liability in the civil case." Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello, 218 F.R.D. 72, 75 (W.D.N.Y. 2003).

Plaintiff argues that a stay is unwarranted because it will cause her prejudice. However, the harm she alleges relates to endorsement and sponsorship opportunities, as well as eligibility at certain track and field events. These harms may be remedied by monetary damages and plaintiff can be adequately compensated even if she obtains a judgment in her favor after the stay has lifted.

To the extent that the remaining factors are implicated in this case, they turn in favor of defendant. Staying the case makes efficient use of judicial resources by "insuring that common issues of fact will be resolved and subsequent civil discovery will proceed unobstructed by concerns regarding self-incrimination." Javier H., 218 F.R.D. at 75. Furthermore, the public interest is furthered by a stay because "the public's interest in the integrity of the criminal case is entitled to precedence over the civil litigant." Id. Therefore, the Court finds that a stay ensures the efficient use of judicial resources and supports the public interest.

Based on its finding that the Keating factors support defendant's motion, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion and STAYS the civil matter until the resolution of United States v. Victor Conte, CR 04-0044 SI, or until October 21, 2005, whichever occurs first. At that time, the parties are instructed to meet with the Court for a case management conference at 2:00 p.m. to discuss further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.