Pellegrino v. Wengert
147 F. Supp. 3d 1379
S.D. Fla.2015Background
- Plaintiffs Pellegrino and Claveria filed suit on March 13, 2015 alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Florida law against BSO deputies.
- Defendants Wengert and Acevedo received letters stating they are subjects of an investigation involving felony battery/excessive use of force.
- Plaintiffs allege coercive force occurred during a deputy-involved incident while investigating a burglary.
- No indictment exists against Wengert or Acevedo at the time of the motion.
- Defendants move to stay the civil case for 120 days or until criminal proceedings resolve; alternatively seek a protective order on Wengert and Acevedo depositions and discovery.
- Court denies the motion to stay and protective order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a stay is warranted due to parallel criminal proceedings | Pellegrino argues stay appropriate due to overlap and privilege concerns | Wengert/Acevedo argue stay necessary to protect self-incrimination rights | Stay denied; no overwhelming overlap or imminent indictment |
| Impact of no indictment on stay request | Plaintiffs emphasize potential criminal action pending | Defendants rely on pending investigation suggesting stay warranted | Indictment lacking weighs against stay; stay not justified |
| Possibility of Hobson’s choice for defendants | N/A | Defendants claim Fifth Amendment risk if forced to testify | Not proven at this stage; defense can use other evidence |
| Whether protective order on depositions should be granted | N/A | Protective order needed to avoid self-incrimination impact | Protective order denied; deposition duty remains |
| Public and case management interests in continuing discovery | Proceed with discovery expeditiously | Stay would delay civil claims; potential indefinite delay | Public and efficiency interests weigh against a stay |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lot 5, Fox Grove, Alachua County, Fla., 23 F.3d 359 (11th Cir. 1994) (stay when special circumstances require)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973) (Fifth Amendment privilege scope in proceedings)
- Erwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668 (11th Cir. 1985) (privilege does not mandate blanket stay)
- Pervis v. State Farm, Fire & Casualty Co., 901 F.2d 944 (11th Cir. 1990) (invocation of privilege must not doom civil case without adverse judgment)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Altina Associates, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 536 (M.D. Fla. 1994) (selective privilege self-incrimination considerations in stay analyses)
- United States v. Premises Located at Route 13, 946 F.2d 749 (11th Cir. 1991) (invocation of privilege and impact on civil actions)