Ex parte Steinberg – Ala. Jan. 15, 2021

Upon a petition for writ of mandamus, the Ex parte Steinberg petitioner sought relief from a stay entered by the Etowah Circuit Court. Petitioner had sued the defendant, alleging that she had “exploited her financially” and damaged her business. Defendant, invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, sought to stay discovery in the civil case because she claimed that she was under federal criminal investigation for a matter that was “identical” to the petitioner’s civil case against her. Notably, the defendant did not present “any evidence” to support her motion. Nevertheless, two days later the Circuit Court stayed the petitioner’s entire civil case. Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus followed shortly thereafter.

The Alabama Supreme Court started by recognizing that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was applicable in civil cases where there was a threat of future criminal proceedings. It noted, however, the party seeking a stay on those grounds has an evidentiary hurdle to clear. A movant seeking a stay of a civil case on Fifth Amendment grounds must first “clearly demonstrate” the existence of a criminal proceeding or investigation that is “parallel” to the civil action sought the movant seeks to stay. The Alabama Supreme Court found that the record before it contained “no actual evidence indicating that a ‘parallel’ criminal proceeding exists regarding [petitioner’s] allegations against [defendant].” The defendant had simply presented her motion, which at most contained unsworn, summary assertions. Because that does not constitute evidence, the Court held defendant was not entitled to a stay and the trial court “exceeded its discretion in ordering the stay.”

HELD: The defendant failed to support her motion to stay a civil case under the Fifth Amendment when she did not produce any evidence of a parallel criminal investigation.