Good Morning all and Happy Sunday!!
I just posted this on another thread, but I think the thread is pretty well done. So I thought I would start a new thread with this thought. Wan't the "Big Announcement" supposed to happen on Oct. 16th?? Well to my knowledege, there WAS no big announcement....or WAS THERE after all?? Maybe the announcement was not coming from the Borg, but that they knew the ruling was going to go against them, and decided to prepare for it. Could that be why the tract came out and hyped all the JWs up?? Take a look at the date on the bottom of this court ruling..Thanks to Pseodeo..we now have the typed document:
Any thoughts??
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF NAPA
CHARISSA W., et al., |
|
Plaintiffs, |
|
v. | Case No.: 26-22191
| JCCP No. 4374
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT |
SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, et al. | RULING ON SUBMITTED
| DISCOVERY MOTIONS
|
Defendants. |
____________________________________|
Plaintiffs’ Motions To Compel Discovery came on for hearing on October 13, 2006. The
court, having read and considered the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion and
having heard oral argument, took the motions under submission and now rules as follows:
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Depositions and/or Protective Order re: the Woodland
Elders (Motion #1)
The Watchtower defendants have informed the plaintiffs that, at the depositions of four
Church Elders, they will invoke the clergy-penitent privilege and object to "any inquiries
concerning judicial investigations and judicial committees." Plaintiffs seek and order compelling
the deponents to attend their depositions and to respond to such inquiries.
26-22191
1
This court has previously ruled in the Track 1 cases that the penitential communication
privilege does not apply to communications between the alleged abusers and the Judicial
Committee. (See Court’s ruling of September 29, 2005.) Although that ruling is not res judicata
in non-track 1 cases, defendants provide no convincing reason why the court should rule
differently in this case. For the reasons expressed in the earlier ruling, the court concludes that
the witnesses may not assert the penitential communication privilege. To the extent the motion
also encompasses the production of documents, defendants shall produce responsive documents,
regardless of when they are dated. As plaintiffs note, it is possible that documents dated after the
alleged abuse will contain relevant information. For these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion #1 is
GRANTED.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel PMK Deposition and Documents - General
(Motion #2)
Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition of the Church defendants’ Person(s) Most
Knowledgeable (PMK) on a number of specified topics. Defendants have objected to six areas
of inquiry, again invoking the clergy-penitent privilege. For the reasons discussed above and in
the court’s earlier ruling, the court finds that the clergy-penitent privilege does not apply to these
documents that post-date the alleged abuse are not relevant or likely to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. As above, the court finds that the documents are discoverable. For these
reasons, plaintiffs’ motion #2 is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel PMK Deposition and Documents - Legal
(Motion #3)
Plaintiffs previously issued a PMK deposition notice concerning "any and all policies that
the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization had for handling accusations and proof of child sexual
abuse from 1970 to the present." During that PMK deposition of Mr. Breaux, he identified
functions that were handled by the Legal Department rather than by the Service Department,
where he worked. As to these, he lacked the information necessary to provide responses.
Plaintiffs subsequently noticed a PMK deposition to inquire into (1) the organization,
staffing and operation of the Legal Department; (2) the Legal Department’s role in responding to
26-22191
2
and investigating child sexual abuse allegations within the organization; (3) the development and
use of "Child Abuse Telememos" which were forms developed to obtain and record information
concerning reports of abuse (blank forms were produced in discovery); (4) records kept by or
under the direction of the Legal Department concerning allegations of abuse; and (5) answers
given to "survey questions" contained on one of the Telememos.
Defendants have objected that these areas of inquiry are protected by the attorney-client
and/or work product privileges. As to the first two categories, plaintiffs contend that they
concern only policies and implementation, and do not invade any privileges. As to categories 3
and 5, they assert only that the requested information is related to the blank documents they
already received in discovery, and that the information goes to the blank documents they
already received in discovery, and that the information goes to the heart of their case. Finally, as
to category 4, they claim again, that no privileges would be invaded, because they seek general
information about the types of records kept by the legal department.
The court agrees that items 1, 2 and 4, which seek general structural, policy and
organizational information concerning the Legal Department, implicate neither the attorney-
client nor the work product privileges. Items 3 and 5, on the other hand, seek protected
information. As set forth in the declaration of the Church’s associate general counsel, the
Telememo forms are completed by attorneys or legal assistants based upon information provide
them by congregation elders, and are used to assis in giving legal advice to the elders, as clients
of the Legal Department. Similarly, any compilation of information, as from the "survey
questions" constitutes attorney work product and is not discoverable.
For these reasons, the court will GRANT the motion as to items 1, 2 and 4 and will
DENY the motion as to items 3 and 5.
Dated: 10/16/06
__________________________
Raymond A. Guadagni, Judge
26-22191
3