Private Client Fiduciary Corporation v. Chopra, 2:22-cv-00436-LK

Dr. Joginder Chopra executed a durable power of attorney in June 2016 appointing her brother, Pham Singh Chopra, with broad financial authority; she experienced significant cognitive decline thereafter.
Between January–February 2019, Chopra transferred funds and stock from Dr. Chopra’s Fidelity account to his personal account and to Akal Institute; he resigned as attorney-in-fact in October 2020 after an APS investigation.
King County Superior Court appointed Private Client Fiduciary Corporation guardian/conservator for Dr. Chopra in August 2021 and ordered return of funds; county prosecutors opened an investigation and communicated with defense counsel about potential charges.
Private Client filed this civil suit in April 2022 for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and unjust enrichment; Chopra moved to dismiss and separately moved to stay discovery or obtain a protective order asserting Fifth Amendment concerns.
The State later declined to file charges and federal prosecutors expressed no interest; the Court denied Chopra’s stay and protective-order requests, finding no ongoing criminal proceeding and inadequate showing of particularized Fifth Amendment harm.
Court rules Chopra may renew a protective-order motion if facts change.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to stay civil discovery pending potential criminal prosecution	Private Client: civil case should proceed; delay would prejudice the estate and witnesses; state had declined charges.	Chopra: must stay so he need not choose between asserting the Fifth Amendment (inviting adverse inferences) or waiving it and risking criminal exposure; prosecutors monitor civil discovery.	Denied. No active criminal proceeding; future indictment speculative; Keating/Molinaro factors favor plaintiff; indefinite delay prejudicial.
Whether to enter a protective order staying discovery from Chopra	Private Client: discovery requests are relevant and proportional; no demonstrated specific prejudice.	Chopra: generalized Fifth Amendment fears justify protective order preventing discovery.	Denied. Chopra failed to show particularized, concrete harm or tie objections to specific discovery; heavy Rule 26(c) burden unmet; may renew if circumstances change.

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322 (9th Cir. 1995) (factors for staying civil proceedings when parallel criminal matters exist)
Federal Savings & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899 (9th Cir. 1989) (stay analysis and weighing competing interests)
Weil v. Markowitz, 829 F.2d 166 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (stay of discovery is an extraordinary remedy)
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (district court discretion to refuse stay despite parallel matters)
United States v. Stringer, 535 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2008) (scope of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination)
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Ala. v. Unity Outpatient Surgery Ctr., Inc., 490 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (lengthy or indefinite stays prejudice plaintiffs)
In re Twelve Grand Jury Subpoenas, 908 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 2018) (distinguishing corporate and personal Fifth Amendment rights)
Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99 (1988) (corporation cannot invoke Fifth Amendment)
United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1 (1970) (agents/officers may assert personal Fifth Amendment rights)
Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (party seeking protective order must show specific prejudice)
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) (heavy burden to justify denying discovery)