There exists in California a rarely used motion for an order granting use and derivative use immunity to witnesses in civil proceedings, so their assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination does not obstruct important testimony. In Daly v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court ruled that such an immunity order may be granted upon “certain conditions which include notification to prosecuting officials of the nature and scope of the proposed immunity, opportunity for those officials to object to the granting of immunity, and the absence of any such objections by such officials.”
Only a few appellate opinions have discussed the motion since Daly, but it remains a viable strategy. See Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara (citing Daly in granting use immunity to public employees compelled by threat of job discipline to answer employer’s potentially incriminating questions). In this instance, a little knowledge can go a long way toward advancing a client’s interests in civil litigation — whether as a plaintiff, a defendant or a third-party witness.
Immunity in a civil case
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
