Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALMA UREÑA, individually, and as Case No.: 26cv101-JES(LR) successor in interest to MIKE JR 12 JIMENEZ, deceased, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 13 MOTION FOR A LIMITED STAY Plaintiff, OF DISCOVERY 14 v. 15 [ECF NO. 35] CITY OF EL CENTRO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On August 14, 2026, Defendants Yu and Lopez filed a “Joint Motion for a Limited 20 Stay of Discovery.” (ECF No. 35.) On August 19, 2026, the Court held a Status 21 Conference with the parties, during which it discussed the pending motion. (See ECF 22 No. 37.) On August 20, 2026, the Cout issued a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff to 23 file an opposition by August 25, 2026, and Defendants Yu and Lopez to file their reply 24 by August 28, 2026. (ECF No. 39 at 1.) On August 25, 2026, Plaintiff timely filed an 25 Opposition to Defendants’ motion, and on August 28, 2026, Defendants Yu and Lopez 26 timely filed a Reply in support of their motion. (See ECF Nos. 40, 41; see also ECF No. 27 39.) Having considered all of the briefing and supporting documents, and for the reasons 28 set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion [ECF No. 35]. 1 I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On January 8, 2026, Plaintiff Alma Urena, individually and as a successor-in- 3 interest to her deceased fourteen-year-old son, Mike Jr. Jimenez, filed a Complaint that 4 initiated this action. (ECF No. 1.) The action arises from the fatal shooting of Plaintiff’s 5 minor son by El Centro police officers on October 5, 2025. (See id.) On January 30, 6 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 6.) Named 7 Defendants City of El Centro and William Yu filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s FAC on 8 February 20, 2026. (ECF No. 7.) On March 25, 2026, the Court held an Early Neutral 9 Evaluation Conference and Case Management Conference, and on March 27, 2026, 10 issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) 11 On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), the 12 operative pleading in this case. (ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff’s SAC alleges the following 13 causes of action: (1) unreasonable seizure–excessive force (42 U.S.C. §1983), 14 (2) interference with due process right to familial relationships (42 U.S.C. § 1983), 15 (3) battery, (4) negligence, (5) violation of California Civil Code section 52.1, and 16 (6) wrongful death. (See id.) On July 1, 2026, Defendant Yu obtained new counsel, and 17 on July 7, 2026—filed his Answer to SAC. (ECF Nos. 24, 25, 27.) On July 16, 2026, 18 Defendant Lopez filed an Answer to Plaintiff’s SAC. (ECF No. 28.) 19 Notably, Defendant Yu was named in Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, FAC, and SAC, 20 (see ECF Nos. 1, 6, 20), and Defendant Lopez was first named in this action in Plaintiff’s 21 SAC, (see ECF No. 20). On July 27, 2026, the Court held a Discovery Conference and 22 continued all deadlines in its Scheduling Order by ninety days. (See ECF Nos. 30, 31.) 23 The Amended Scheduling Order set the following key deadlines: October 26, 2026 as the 24 deadline to serve written discovery, December 28, 2026 as the deadline to complete fact 25 discovery, April 26, 2027 as the deadline to complete expert discovery, May 24, 2027 as 26 the deadline to file pretrial motions, and September 22, 2027 as the Final Pretrial 27 Conference. (ECF No. 31.) 28 / / / 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as part of the inherent power to 3 control its docket. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The Constitution 4 does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal 5 proceedings.” Keating v. Off. of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, simultaneous 7 parallel civil and criminal proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” Id. 8 (alterations and citation omitted). 9 A court may exercise its discretion to stay civil proceedings when the interests of 10 justice require such action. Id. A court should consider the circumstances and interests 11 involved in the case, especially “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment 12 rights are implicated.” Id. The court should additionally consider the following factors: 13 (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to 14 plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the 15 proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; 16 (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the 17 interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.

19 Id. at 325. 20 The “party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances 21 justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433–34 (2009). 22 Further, “stays should not be indefinite in nature.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. 23 Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Leyva v. Certified 24 Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 864 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A stay should not be granted 25 unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time 26 in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.”). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Defendants Yu and Lopez request a “limited stay of discovery to Defendants as to 3 the issues implicated by an ongoing criminal investigation into the police shooting in this 4 matter.” (ECF No. 35 at 2; ECF No. 35-1 at 2.) Specifically, Defendants seek a stay 5 until September 30, 2026, of “incident-related discovery to the Defendants, including 6 written discovery and deposition examination.” (ECF No. 35 at 2.) Defendants Yu and 7 Lopez argue that there is good cause for the stay, the stay will not unduly prejudice 8 Plaintiff, and the denial of the stay will unduly prejudice them. (Id.) Defendants allege 9 that there is a pending criminal investigation by the District Attorney for Imperial County 10 (“DA”) into the underlying shooting involving them. (Id.) Defendants Yu and Lopez 11 further claim that without the stay, they will have to “either respond to substantive 12 discovery in this civil action that could be used against them in regard to potential 13 criminal charges,” or “assert their Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination as 14 to any such charges, which assertion would be used against them in this civil action.” 15 (Id.) 16 Plaintiff opposes the motion to stay arguing that Defendants Yu and Lopez knew 17 of the criminal investigation from its inception, consulted criminal counsel, and 18 voluntarily provided their accounts of the shooting at issue. (ECF No. 40 at 3.) Plaintiff 19 also asserts that it is speculative that Defendants Yu and Lopez may be indicted. (Id. at 20 7–8.) Additionally, Plaintiff states that even if the DA decides not to file charges against 21 Defendants Yu and Lopez, the DA may subsequently reconsider this decision if new 22 evidence emerges, and Defendants’ proposed stay therefore will not meaningfully resolve 23 their Fifth Amendment concerns. (Id. at 3–4.) Plaintiff further contends that Defendant 24 Yu was not diligent in seeking to stay discovery, and it would be unjust to allow him to 25 obtain a stay after he served comprehensive discovery on Plaintiff and received Plaintiff’s 26 responses to discovery. (Id. at 5–7.) Plaintiff maintains that her interest in proceeding 27 expeditiously with this action aligns with the Court’s interest in promoting prompt 28 resolution of the action, Defendants have not established “substantial prejudice” or that 1 the interests of justice can only be served if the stay is granted, and no relevant factor 2 favors the stay, while most of the factors weigh against granting the stay. (Id. at 7–10.) 3 Plaintiff therefore asks the Court to deny Defendants’ motion. (Id.) 4 Defendants reply that the requested stay will not delay the resolution of this action 5 and will not prejudice Plaintiff because the Final Pretrial Conference is set for a date 6 more than a year from the date of the filing of their Reply and the trial date has not yet 7 been set. (ECF No. 41 at 6.) Defendants further argue that they will be significantly 8 prejudiced if the Court denies the stay, and they will not gain any unfair advantage from 9 the partial stay they seek because all other discovery would proceed. (Id. at 7–8.) 10 Defendants therefore ask that “the stay extend until and be revisited at the next Status 11 Conference on September 30, 2026,” the date by which Defendants allege “it is 12 anticipated that the results of criminal investigation will be known.” (Id. at 9.) 13 A. Implication of Fifth Amendment Rights 14 In determining whether to grant a stay, the Court is required to consider the 15 circumstances and interests involved in the case, especially “the extent to which the 16 defendant’s fifth amendment rights are implicated.” See Keating, 45 F.3d at 325. The 17 Ninth Circuit explicitly held in Keating that “[a] defendant has no absolute right not to be 18 forced to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth Amendment 19 privilege.” Id. at 326. The Ninth Circuit also specified that “[n]ot only is it permissible 20 to conduct a civil proceeding at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even if 21 that necessitates invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, but it is even permissible 22 for the trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from the invocation of the Fifth 23 Amendment in a civil proceeding.” Id. (citing Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 24 (1976)). Notably, the Ninth Circuit has explained that a stay in civil proceedings is “a far 25 weaker one” where no indictment has been issued. Fed. Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp. v. 26 Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting S.E.C. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 27 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). While the extent to which a defendant’s Fifth 28 Amendment rights are implicated is a “significant factor” a court should consider, it is 1 still “only one consideration to be weighed against others.” Keating, 45 F.3d at 325. 2 “[A] stay is not warranted where a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights can be protected 3 through less drastic means, such as asserting the privilege on a question-by-question 4 basis.” ESG Cap. Partners LP v. Stratos, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1045–46 (C.D. Cal. 2014) 5 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 6 Any potential criminal case involving Defendants Yu and Lopez will likely 7 concern the same underlying conduct - fatal shooting of Plaintiff’s minor son on 8 October 5, 2025, but “the precise degree of overlap of factual and legal issues [in this 9 civil case and any potential criminal case] remains unknown in the absence of an actual 10 indictment.” See eBay, Inc. v. Digit. Point Sols., Inc., No. C 08-4052 JF (PVT), 2010 11 WL 702463, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010). Although the DA’s investigation is 12 ongoing, Defendants Yu and Lopez have not been charged with any crime. Further, 13 Defendants have not provided any evidence to the Court indicating that indictments 14 against them are likely or imminent. On the record before it, the Court finds that 15 Defendants Yu and Lopez have real, but tempered Fifth Amendment interests, and those 16 interests must be considered in light of the other Keating factors, as discussed below. See 17 Henson v. Cnty. of L.A., Case No. 2:24-cv-08883-JLS-AJR, 2026 WL 1455325, at *2 18 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2026) (finding that “Fifth Amendment concerns weigh[ed] somewhat 19 in favor of a stay, but this [wa]s greatly tempered by the lack of an indictment as well as 20 [d]efendant’s failure to provide any evidence that an indictment is likely or imminent.”); 21 Campos v. City of Fullerton, Case No. 8:24-cv-01892-DOC-ADS, 2025 WL 2369243, at 22 *3 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2025) (“Where, as here, it is unknown whether criminal charges 23 will be filed, the criminal investigation is routine where an officer-involved shooting 24 occurs, and [d]efendants provide no evidence to suggest prosecution is imminent, the 25 threat to the officers’ Fifth Amendment right is remote and courts frequently deny 26 Motions to Stay.”). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 B. The Keating Factors 2 1. Prejudice to Plaintiff 3 The first Keating factor requires the Court to analyze Plaintiff’s interest in 4 proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the 5 potential prejudice to Plaintiff from a delay. See Keating, 45 F.3d at 325. Plaintiffs in 6 civil cases generally have a strong interest in proceeding expeditiously with their suit. 7 See In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., Case No.: 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD), 8 2018 WL 5785284, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2018) (“Civil [p]laintiffs have a strong 9 interest in the speedy resolution of their claims, which weighs against a stay.”); 10 Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Global Fin. Support, Inc., Case No.: 15-cv-02440-GPC- 11 WVG, 2016 WL 2868698, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 17, 2016) (“Courts have recognized that 12 a civil plaintiff has an interest in having her case resolved quickly.”). Any delay resulting 13 from a stay may needlessly postpone relief to which a plaintiff may be entitled, and a 14 delay “inherently increase[s] the risk that witnesses’ memories will fade and evidence 15 will become stale.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 643 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, 16 indefinite stays are disfavored. See Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 498 F.3d at 17 1066; Leyva, 593 F.2d at 864. 18 In this case, the stay Defendants Yu and Lopez seek will delay discovery regarding 19 their involvement in the fatal shooting at issue, including their depositions and responses 20 to discovery requests. Plaintiff, as a mother of the minor decedent, has a strong interest 21 in obtaining Defendants’ testimony about the facts surrounding the shooting of her son, 22 and comparing their testimony with the testimony of other officers present at the scene, 23 as well as juvenile eyewitnesses who were in the car with the decedent at the time of the 24 shooting. Although Defendants hope that the DA’s decision whether to initiate criminal 25 charges against them will be finalized by the end of September 2026, that hope is 26 speculative. The DA’s investigation may take longer and result in additional requests by 27 Defendants to extend the stay with no end date. Further, Defendants Yu and Lopez were 28 among the key actors in the underlying shooting, and the stay of discovery with respect to 1 their involvement in the shooting would impede key discovery in this case. Notably, the 2 Court has already continued all deadlines in this case, including discovery deadlines, by 3 ninety days. (See ECF No. 31.) Accordingly, the stay Defendants seek will further delay 4 the litigation process in this case, thereby prejudicing Plaintiff. See Henson, 2026 WL 5 1455325, at *1, *3 (finding that the interest of plaintiff in proceeding with the litigation 6 weighed against a stay, where defendants County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles 7 County Sheriff’s Deputy filed a motion for a limited stay of discovery with respect to the 8 Deputy’s deposition pending the investigation of the underlying incident by the Los 9 Angeles County DA’s Office; noting that “[a]n indefinite stay of discovery with respect 10 to the deposition of [d]efendant [], who is central in this case, will prejudice [p]laintiff’s 11 ability to expeditiously proceed.”); see also Shabazz v. Walker, Case No. CV 21-06111- 12 MWF (AFMx), 2021 WL 8441198, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2021) (finding that 13 defendants’ motion to stay discovery until the criminal investigation concluded “on its 14 face [wa]s a request for an indefinite stay”; finding that plaintiffs would be prejudiced by 15 the delay resulting from such a stay and that the first Keating factor weighed against the 16 stay). The first Keating factor therefore weighs against the stay. 17 2. Burden on Defendants 18 The Court is next required to analyze the burden which any particular aspect of the 19 proceedings may impose on Defendants. See Keating, 45 F.3d at 325. Although 20 Defendants Yu and Lopez argue that “there is an inarguable burden to [them] being 21 forced to choose between asserting their Fifth Amendment right and impairing their 22 defense to the civil claims or waiving that right while there is a pending criminal 23 investigation,” (see ECF No. 35-1 at 8), Defendants have not been indicted and have not 24 presented any evidence that such indictments are likely or imminent. As discussed 25 above, Defendants’ Fifth Amendment interests are not as strong as those in civil actions 26 where there are parallel ongoing criminal proceedings. This factor therefore weighs 27 against granting a stay. See Henson, 2026 WL 1455325, at *3 (finding that the second 28 Keating factor weighed against defendants’ request for a limited stay of discovery 1 because defendant Sheriff’s Department’s Deputy had not been indicted; noting that “the 2 degree to which his Fifth Amendment interests [we]re implicated [was] low”); Elena v. 3 City of L.A., Case No. 2:22-cv-07651-JLS-KSx, 2023 WL 4763327, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 4 June 20, 2023) (finding that the second Keating factor weighed against defendants’ 5 request to stay discovery because defendant Police Officer had not been indicted; noting 6 that his “Fifth Amendment interests [we]re not as strong as cases where there [we]re 7 parallel ongoing criminal proceedings”). 8 3. Convenience of the court and judicial efficiency 9 The third Keating factor centers on the convenience of the court in the 10 management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources. See Keating, 45 F.3d 11 at 325. “Courts have recognized that this Keating factor normally does not favor granting 12 a stay, because ‘the court has an interest in clearing its docket.’” ESG Cap. Partners LP 13 v. Stratos, 22 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1047 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (quoting Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. 14 Corp., 889 F.2d at 903). This is particularly so where “no indictment has been returned 15 and ‘there is no way to predict when the criminal investigation [will] end.’” Consumer 16 Fin. Prot. Bureau, 2019 WL 1937571, at *3 (quoting Walsh Sec., Inc. v. Cristo Prop. 17 Mgmt., Ltd., 7 F. Supp. 2d 523, 528 (D.N.J. 1998)). Although Defendants hope that the 18 stay they seek will be short, as discussed above, the stay will impede key discovery in 19 this case for an undetermined period of time until the DA’s investigation is completed. 20 This factor therefore weighs against granting a stay. 21 4. Interests of non-parties 22 The fourth Keating factor directs the Court to consider the interests of persons not 23 parties to the civil litigation. See Keating, 45 F.3d at 325. Defendants do not allege any 24 third-party interests at stake. Accordingly, the fourth Keating factor is neutral. See 25 Elena, 2023 WL 4763327, at *3 (finding that interests of non-parties was “neutral” where 26 defendants did not “identify any such third-party witnesses,” and the benefit was “very 27 speculative.”); see also Estate of Hernandez-Rojas v. Customs and Border Patrol Agent 28 7663, Civil No. 11–cv–0522–L(DHB), 2012 WL 5429091, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2012) 1 (noting that where “[n]either party raise[d] any concerns regarding third party interests,” 2 the “[c]ourt w[ould] not consider this factor in the balancing.”). 3 5. Public’s interest 4 The last Keating factor requires the Court to consider the interest of the general 5 public in the pending civil and criminal litigation. See Keating, 45 F.3d at 325. “While 6 the public has an interest in ensuring that the criminal process is not subverted by 7 ongoing civil cases, the public interest also favors speedy disposition of cases on their 8 merits, particularly in civil rights cases.” Elena, 2023 WL 4763327, at *4 (internal 9 quotations omitted) (quoting Douglas v. United States, Nos. C 03-04518 JW, C 04-05357 10 JW, 2006 WL 2038375, at *6 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006); Herd v. Cnty. of San 11 Bernardino, Case No. ED CV 17-02545-AB (SPx), 2018 WL 5816175, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 12 Sept. 17, 2018)). In this case, no criminal proceedings have been initiated against 13 Defendants Yu and Lopez, and it is unclear whether any charges will ever be filed against 14 them. Additionally, the case has already been delayed by the ninety-day continuance of 15 all deadlines. (See ECF No. 31.) Notably, courts have recognized that “[i]t is especially 16 important, in cases where police misconduct has been alleged, for the public to see justice 17 be fairly and efficiently done.” See Henson, 2026 WL 1455325, at *3 (quoting Estate of 18 Morad v. City of Long Beach, Case No. CV 16-06785 MWF (AJWx), 2017 WL 19 5187826, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2017)). The public’s interest therefore is best served 20 by proceeding with this case, and this factor weighs against granting a stay. See Henson, 21 2026 WL 1455325, at *3 (finding that the public’s interest was best served by proceeding 22 with the case and the last Keating factor weighed against granting a stay, where “there 23 [wa]s no criminal proceeding ongoing, and because th[e] case ha[d] already been delayed 24 pending the . . . investigation”); Elena, 2023 WL 4763327, at *4 (finding the last Keating 25 factor weighed against granting a stay where “there [wa]s no criminal proceeding 26 ongoing and no way to know when [the pending] investigation w[ould] conclude”). 27 / / / 28 / / / I IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the majority of Keating 3 || factors weigh against Defendants’ request for a stay. As a result, the Court DENIES 4 || Defendants’ motion for a partial stay of discovery. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: September 10, 2026 7 FY 9 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28