Ipc section 87 trial#

They argued it would be unfair to permit the security guards to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination to avoid their disclosure obligations during discovery, only to then waive the privilege and testify at trial. Petitioners opposed the security guards' motion.

Ipc section 87 trial#

Hence, the security guards asked the trial court, among other things, to stay the depositions entirely or until they were no longer in jeopardy of criminal prosecution. В§ 242.) A federal grand jury had requested the security guards' personnel files, and the FBI had interviewed and taken statements from certain IPC employees. The security guards described ongoing investigations by the United States Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) into whether the security guards had used force under color of law during the events which gave rise to this lawsuit. 4 The security guards then moved for a protective order to prevent the depositions from going forward (Code Civ. In due course, petitioners noticed the depositions of the security guards. Accordingly, we deny the writ petition without prejudice.ДЄfter they were allegedly beaten by the security guards at the Del Amo Fashion Center, petitioners brought this action against the security guards, IPC, and other individuals seeking damages for, inter alia, assault, battery, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and discrimination. If the security guards invoke their privilege, the court will be able to fashion whatever protective order it deems reasonable to balance the interests of the parties and the judicial system. The security guards can interpose appropriate objections so that the trial court can then rule on the validity of their invocation of the privilege with respect to specific questions. For the reasons set forth below, we hold the depositions should be allowed to proceed. The depositions have not commenced and the security guards have not yet sought to invoke their privilege against self-incrimination. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. Petitioners then sought a writ of mandate in this court to direct the trial court to preclude the security guards from testifying at trial to matters about which the security guards might during deposition invoke their privilege. The trial court denied both the security guards' motion and petitioners' petition. Petitioners opposed the motion and asked the trial court by a mandamus petition to prohibit the security guards from testifying at trial to matters about which they might, during deposition, invoke their privilege against self-incrimination (U.S. Fearing criminal prosecution arising from the same incident, the security guards moved the trial court for a protective order precluding the depositions, or staying them until the criminal statute of limitations expires. Petitioners noticed the depositions of the individual guard defendants. 2 the guards' employer IPC International Corporation (IPC), and others, alleging various tort causes of action. 1 African-American shoppers who claim they were beaten by security guards, sued the individual guards, fn. Katten, Muchin & Zavis and Steve Cochran for Real Parties in Interest The Torrance Company, Carson-Madrona Company and Del Amo Fashion Center Merchants Association. Bowman for Real Parties in Interest IPC International Corporation, John Schimanski, Jesus Hernandez, Ronnie Franco, Robert Banuelos, Sean Ferguson, Gilbert Sanchez, Clemente Saldana and Kevin Yuan. J., and Croskey, J., concurring.)Д¬orsino & Sutherland, John M. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent IPC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION et al., Real Parties in Interest.