## Facts

- Olympic operated a buried petroleum pipeline carrying gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel.
- In June 1999, the pipeline ruptured and released large quantities of gasoline into Whatcom Creek in Bellingham; the fuel ignited, causing an explosion and fire.
- Two ten-year-old boys (including Wade King) and a young man fishing nearby were killed.
- Wade King’s family filed a wrongful-death action against Olympic, related corporate entities, and three senior executives.
- Multiple government investigations began, including federal inquiries into potential criminal violations arising from the same incident, creating substantial criminal exposure for the individual defendants.
- In the civil case, the individual defendants sought (1) a temporary stay of civil discovery pending completion of criminal investigations and (2) a protective order limiting dissemination of discovery materials due to criminal risk and intense publicity.
- The trial court denied both requests, reasoning in part that it could instruct the jury not to draw adverse inferences from invocation of the Fifth Amendment.
- The individual defendants obtained discretionary review; the Court of Appeals stayed discovery pending its decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a temporary stay of civil discovery where parallel criminal investigations created a serious risk of self-incrimination.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying a protective order under Washington Civil Rule 26(c) restricting dissemination of discovery materials in a high-publicity case with parallel criminal exposure.
3. What framework a trial court must apply when deciding a stay request aimed at protecting Fifth Amendment interests in parallel civil and criminal matters.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held the denial of a discovery stay was affected by legal error because the trial court misunderstood the Fifth Amendment’s operation in civil litigation, including the possibility of adverse inferences from invocation of the privilege.
- The court vacated the denial of the stay motion and remanded for rehearing and reconsideration under a proper balancing framework.
- The court provided guidance on the CR 26(c) protective-order standard and remanded for reconsideration of that request consistent with the required “good cause” showing and competing interests.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has discretion to stay civil proceedings or discovery to protect a party’s Fifth Amendment rights during parallel criminal investigations, but that discretion must be exercised using an explicit, reasoned balancing of competing interests.
- In civil cases, the factfinder may draw an adverse inference from a party’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment; a court may not deny a stay based on the assumption that a jury instruction will eliminate that prejudice.
- In deciding whether to grant a stay, relevant considerations include: the extent Fifth Amendment rights are implicated; overlap between civil and criminal matters; status of criminal investigations; prejudice to the plaintiff from delay; court and public interests in efficient resolution; and risk of unfair tactical advantage.
- Under CR 26(c), a protective order requires a specific showing of good cause (e.g., annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden), and the court should consider narrower alternatives and countervailing interests in openness and public access.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals required trial courts to evaluate stay requests in parallel civil-criminal matters through a defined balancing analysis informed by the real evidentiary consequences of invoking the Fifth Amendment in civil litigation, and it remanded for reconsideration of both a discovery stay and a CR 26(c) protective order.


King v. Olympic Pipeline Co., 16 P.3d 45 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)