Bilbruck v. Valley County, 4:21-cv-00040

Luke Strommen, a former Valley County law enforcement officer, is sued by Sady Bilbruck for alleged sexual misconduct that occurred when Bilbruck was a minor.
Strommen and Bilbruck had a sexual relationship; some encounters allegedly occurred while Strommen was on duty. Bilbruck was 17 at the time, and claims include whether the sex was consensual.
Valley County is sued for alleged negligent supervision/retention of Strommen. Evidence includes a missing anonymous letter (about sexual abuse allegations) and a missing report (E.S. report) related to Strommen.
Strommen pleaded guilty to possession of child sexual abuse material (a photograph of Bilbruck) and was previously convicted (later overturned) of sexual intercourse without consent with another minor (J.R.).
Strommen moved to stay the proceedings, exclude various evidence, and Bilbruck moved for sanctions due to lost evidence. The court ruled on these motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Stay Proceedings	Statute of limitations never expires for SIWC; no need for stay	Statute of limitations for SIWC (sexual intercourse without consent) expires soon; needs stay to protect Fifth Amendment rights	Denied. Stay would be indefinite and there's little chance of criminal charges being filed now.
Sanctions for Lost E.S. Report	Loss hindered negligent supervision claim; asks for default	Report has minimal value, received post-incident	Denied. Minimal value, no willfulness, unclear anticipation of litigation.
Sanctions for Lost Anonymous Letter	Crucial for showing county was on notice; asks for default	Letter vague, anonymous, not clearly tied to Strommen	Adverse inference instruction granted as sanction (not default).
Excluding Evidence (Prior Acts, Lawsuits, Guilty Plea)	Prior bad acts and lawsuits should be admissible; guilty plea relevant	Other lawsuits are irrelevant/prejudicial; bad acts barred by Rule 404(b); guilty plea irrelevant/prejudicial	Most exclusions denied without prejudice; guilty plea admissible; testimony on ultimate legal issues and undisclosed theories excluded.

Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) (establishes court's inherent authority to stay proceedings)
Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989) (standards for staying civil proceedings pending parallel criminal actions)
Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995) (factors for balancing interests when considering a stay due to parallel criminal proceedings)
Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (default judgment as sanction only in extreme cases)
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distribs., 69 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995) (factors to weigh before imposing harsh sanctions for spoliation)
United States v. Chief, 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) (statute of limitations can be extended for unexpired offenses)
Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 2000) (admission of prior sexual assault evidence in civil cases under Fed. R. Evid. 415)
United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for admitting propensity evidence in sexual assault cases)
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) (retroactive extension of statutes of limitations)