Lyons v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 14 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | 22068.,No. 22172,22172 |
| Citation | 415 F.2d 540 |
| Parties | Jo Ann LYONS, Appellant, v. Wilbur R. JOHNSON et al., Appellees. Jo Ann LYONS, Appellant, v. F. J. DELARIOS et al., Appellees. Jo Ann LYONS, Appellant, v. F. J. DELARIOS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Neri Ramos (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
John B. Marchants (argued), of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, San Francisco, Cal., John H. Sears (argued), of Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, Cal., Ropers, Majeski & Phelps, Redwood City, Cal., Reisch & Sherman, So. San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before JOHNSEN*, ELY and CARTER, Circuit Judges.
Two of these three appeals are from dismissals of civil rights damage actions under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against different defendants. The third appeal is from an earlier order in one of the suits denying appellant's request for an injunction.
One of the suits was against a California deputy district attorney, some police officers and other persons. The other suit was against a magistrate of a municipal court and an attorney appointed to represent or assist appellant in some misdemeanor charges on which proceedings had been suspended for a time under § 1368 of the California Penal Code (). From the implications of the complaints, appellant was after hospital examination apparently deemed not to lack capacity to stand trial. Both complaints sought damages for conspiracy and acts, alleged to have been engaged in against appellant, which were recognized by her as having been separate but apparently regarded as having had similar aims — getting her put (she believed) into a state mental institution.
Dismissal of the suits was made because of appellant's continued and unyielding refusal to submit herself to any depositional interrogation or discovery whatsoever in relation to her claims. She ignored a number of notices which had been served upon her for that purpose. When the court thereupon entered an order directing her to appear upon another such notice, she presented herself at the deposition scene, but refused to answer any question except to state her name. To all other inquiries made of her, she merely responded that she was invoking her privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The interrogation had sought to elicit information from her as to her version of the background, aspects and incidents on which she was predicating her claims.
When motions were thereafter filed in both suits for orders requiring appellant to answer such questions or granting dismissal of her suits, the court accorded a full and patient hearing in the matter. Judge Burke explained to her the right of a defendant who has been subjected to a suit to require the plaintiff to submit to depositional discovery in relation to the claims asserted; advised her that if she wanted to use the shield of self-incrimination against any interrogation whatsoever regarding her claims, she would have to forego the right to prosecute the actions; and informed her that if she was determined to adhere to her position, it would be necessary for him to dismiss the suits.
Appellant remained adamant and declared: . With the further specific inquiries by the court as to whether she might be willing to recede from her position "if you were to appear for further deposition", and whether her refusal was intended to apply to both of the lawsuits, the situation was left with no room for any uncertainty or misunderstanding by appellant — and she makes no such contention here.
On these absolutes, the orderly functioning of a court and the equal administration of justice by it could call only for the action which the trial court took. No abuse of discretion within the provisions of Rule 26(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britt v. Superior Court
...of the privilege. (See, e. g., Shepherd v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 117, 130 Cal.Rptr. 257, 550 P.2d 161; Lyons v. Johnson (9th Cir. 1969) 415 F.2d 540, 542.) While these precedents in analogous areas suggest that, to at least some extent, a plaintiff may well waive his right of......
-
Sharon v. Time, Inc.
...to reveal the very information which might absolve defendant of all liability") rehearing denied, 611 F.2d 1026 (1979); Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540, 541 (9th Cir.1969) (plaintiff cannot "refuse to submit to any discovery whatsoever ... by asserting a fifth amendment privilege ... and the......
-
Griffith v. Griffith
...to answer questions relevant to the issues is not a violation of any right guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. As the court reasoned in Lyons v. Johnson: If any prejudice is to come from such a situation, it must, as a matter of basic fairness in the purposes and concepts on which the right ......
-
Bramble v. Kleindienst
...Insurance Co., 290 F.Supp. 141, 149 (1968). The most recent and most similar case of the four cases mentioned above was Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1969). Although that case may be distinguished from the case at hand on its fact situation (the plaintiff in Lyons, supra, refused......
-
Waiver of attorney-client privilege via issue injection: a call for uniformity.
...Hearn v Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D. Wash. 1975). (11.) Rhone-Poulenc, 32 F.3d at 863-64. (12.) 22 F.R.D. at 277. (13.) Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir. 1969); Compagnie Francaise d'Assurance Pour Le Commerce Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 25 n.2 (S.D. N.Y. 19......