Judge Says 5th Amendment Should Not Be Used to Avoid Deposition in Food Truck Explosion Civil Case
A Philadelphia judge handling the case has ruled that the defendant must attend a deposition and may assert the Fifth Amendment privilege only on a question-by-question basis.
April 17, 2018 at 05:44 PM
4 minute read
U-Haul food truck. Photo: Shutterstock
With the U.S. Department of Justice refusing to say whether a criminal investigation is underway over a 2014 food truck explosion, a defendant in the related civil litigation is fighting attempts to be deposed, arguing instead that he should be able to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying altogether.
A Philadelphia judge handling the case, however, has ruled that the defendant must attend a deposition and may assert the privilege only on a question-by-question basis. On Monday, the judge issued an opinion, asking the Pennsylvania Superior Court to uphold his ruling.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge John Milton Younge ruled in Galdamez v. U-Haul that Miguel Rivera, who was a manager at the U-Haul facility who filled the propane tank that eventually exploded, needed to at least attend the deposition and be asked questions before asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
“This court's order compelling Mr. Rivera to attend deposition did not in any way restrict his ability to assert his constitutional rights against self-incrimination,” Younge said. “As a matter of fact, the order specifically states that Mr. Rivera is free to assert his rights against self-incrimination to each question asked of him at deposition.”
The ruling comes as federal investigators have allegedly “stonewalled” U-Haul regarding its investigation of the 2014 incident, which left two dead and three severely injured. The trucking company sued the DOJ and the U.S. Department of Transportation in federal court earlier this year, seeking access to the evidence and alleging that the agencies' refusal to turn over the evidence is arbitrary and goes against federal disclosure regulations.
The underlying products liability litigation stems from a food truck explosion that occurred July 1, 2014, in North Philadelphia.
The plaintiffs in those cases sued U-Haul over allegations that it failed to properly inspect a more than 65-year-old propane tank that allegedly caused the explosion. The tank, according to the allegations, was manufactured in 1948, and had never been inspected. The plaintiffs alleged U-Haul was negligent for refilling the tank even though there were no markings showing the tank had been recently recertified for safety.
The two women who died in the explosion were Olga Galdamez, the truck owner, and her daughter, Jaylin Steffany Landaverry Galdamez.
Counsel for Rivera, Michael Engle of Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, said Rivera's attorneys are reviewing Younge's opinion, and plan to seek a stay in the case pending the Superior Court's review.
“We obviously respectfully disagree with the court's position on this issue, which is why we have sought appellate review on the matter,” he said. “We look forward to our opportunity to present this legal issue to the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the coming months.”
Attorneys representing plaintiffs involved in the case, however, contend that the interplay of the Fifth Amendment and civil proceedings is clear.
“You can't allow witnesses to come in and assert a blanket Fifth Amendment privilege. That allows people to avoid giving any testimony,” Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock Dodig attorney Alan Feldman, who is representing Galdamez, said. “Judge Younge was exactly right.”
Robert Mongeluzzi of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, who is representing two of the plaintiffs, said the issue has come up in many cases he has previously handled, including the Salvation Army building collapse case.
“Judge Younge struck the perfect balance in protecting the constitutional right of the potential defendant and allowing the plaintiffs attorneys, who represent devastatingly and catastrophically injured victims, to pose questions,” he said.
“In civil law, rather than criminal law, taking the Fifth can be held against you,” Andrew Duffy of Saltz Mongeluzzi added. “We fully intend to seek an adverse inference in this case.”
Duffy + Partners attorney Kenneth Fulginiti, who is also representing injured plaintiffs, agreed.
“Younge was right on the law, and we're confident we will provail,” Fulginiti said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute readAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250