Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Ex Parte Great Escapes Travel, Inc.
Citations: 573 So. 2d 278; 1990 WL 255857Docket: 89-1648
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; December 20, 1990; Alabama; State Supreme Court
A petition for a writ of mandamus was filed by Jan Panky Daniel and Jack Daniel, defendants in a civil action initiated by Nancy Hecker against them and Trans World Airlines, Inc. The petitioners sought a stay of discovery and all proceedings in light of a pending criminal prosecution, which they argued would infringe upon their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Hecker’s civil complaint alleged that the Daniels misappropriated over $50,000 intended for group travel tours that Hecker organized, following an agreement where she acted as an agent for their travel agency, Great Escapes Travel, Inc. The Madison County grand jury indicted the Daniels for theft related to this case. Despite the petitioners denying Hecker's claims and filing a counterclaim and a third-party complaint against TWA, they requested a stay on discovery proceedings, citing their privilege against self-incrimination. The trial court denied their motion to stay, which led to the petitioners seeking relief from the Supreme Court of Alabama. Hecker contended that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and argued the petitioners had waived their privilege by engaging in previous discovery actions. The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the trial court proceedings while considering the petitioners' arguments. TWA contends that Great Escapes lacks Fifth Amendment privilege to resist producing corporate documents and that the Daniels improperly claimed a blanket privilege against testimony rather than objecting to specific queries, as required by precedent. TWA argues that petitioners should not be permitted to assert claims against it shortly before trial while refusing to engage in discovery. The court has addressed similar issues in Ex parte White and Ex parte Baugh, where it granted stays for petitioners involved in concurrent criminal prosecutions, compelling them to respond to specific inquiries despite their claims of self-incrimination. The Daniels’ failure to assert privilege against specific questions does not negate the court’s prior decisions that recognized the potential for self-incrimination in related civil actions. The Daniels argue they did not waive their privilege by previously testifying, as they were unaware of impending indictments at that time. They assert that without knowledge of potential criminal charges, their earlier depositions cannot be considered a "knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" waiver of privilege. The law allows for the assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege based on a reasonable apprehension of self-incrimination, even in the absence of formal charges. The court notes that it cannot assess the Daniels' claims without reviewing the depositions, which may show whether their testimony was incriminating and if a waiver occurred. Any waiver would only pertain to the specific matters discussed in those depositions. As the depositions are not available, the court denies the writ and lifts the stay, instructing the trial court to evaluate the depositions' impact on the privilege claim and decide how to proceed.