Mitchell v. Zenon Construction Co.

Citations: 149 F.R.D. 513; 1992 WL 510653; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21835Docket: Civ. No. 1990-164

Court: District Court, Virgin Islands; January 15, 1992; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Rafael Torres filed a Motion for Protective Order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) on August 28, 1991, to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination concerning his employment with Zenon, aiming to avoid a deposition set for September 3, 1991. Although he previously admitted to working with Zenon, he now argues that further testimony could lead to criminal prosecution by Workmen’s Compensation and Social Security agencies. The court granted his motion on September 3, 1991, allowing only general questions about the vehicle and accident, and rescheduled the deposition for September 19, 1991, where Torres testified.

However, on September 16, 1991, Torres asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege in response to most of the plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for admissions. The plaintiff objected, claiming Torres waived this privilege and sought to compel his responses. The court must determine if Torres waived his Fifth Amendment right due to his prior admissions and whether to grant his request to seal employment-related discovery.

The court noted that the Fifth Amendment privilege applies to civil matters and that a waiver should be inferred only in compelling circumstances. A party who has admitted to incriminating facts cannot refuse to answer further questions that do not pose a risk of additional incrimination. Torres admitted to working with Zenon and provided details about his training during the deposition. The plaintiff argues that since these admissions were made, Torres cannot refuse to provide further details that would not reveal new crimes.

The court agrees with the plaintiff's position, stating that Torres's concerns about potential prosecution are tenuous. Additionally, relevant employment information could be obtained through other means, such as payroll records from Zenon. Since Torres's prior admissions already establish the basis for potential prosecution, further testimony regarding the incident would not subject him to new incrimination.

The court emphasizes the importance of the privilege against self-incrimination, noting that it can only be waived in compelling circumstances. The Klein decision established that a defendant who voluntarily provides incriminating statements under oath may not later claim the Fifth Amendment privilege regarding those disclosures. In this case, the defendant voluntarily revealed incriminating details about his employment during interrogatories and a deposition, and admitted to his employment in his Answer. An officer ticketed the defendant as the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident, indicating he possesses crucial information about the incident. The court balances the defendant's rights against the plaintiff’s right to discovery and a swift resolution of the case. The defendant's claim of fear of prosecution is deemed unfounded, appearing as an attempt to withhold information. The court concludes that any further statements from the defendant are unlikely to reveal additional incriminating evidence. Consequently, the court denies the defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, with exceptions for specific requests and interrogatories. The request to seal discovery related to the defendant's employment is also denied, though confidentiality measures are imposed pending further court rulings. The defendant must respond to all outstanding discovery requests within thirty days.