I believe it depends now on the quality of the lawyers of Conti. The court is of course correct when they state that elder are not obliged to make a confidential conversation public. It is a bit strange (I assume the quote is accurate) that they said "had no duty to depart from Watchtower's policy of confidentiality"
I would say the elders had no duty to depart from the attorney-client privilege (if that is what it's called). In other words, there was no reason to break this specific law. It is the same with doctors and patients and attorneys and their clients.
My question would be, if all that Kendrick had done prior to molesting Conti was secret or whether his prior convictions and behaviour was already in the public domain (i.e. court records, news paper articles). If so, the elders could have shared that public information. In the end, the elders are believed to have been appointed to protect the flock, even give their lives for it.
Yes, it is going ot be a marathon, very costly as well. If I would be the lawyer for Conti, I would focus much more on the role elders are given by the organisation, and the principles in the bible because the WBTS always claim they do all as written in the bible. I would use exactly that claim to show they failed and are using (cherry picking) the secular law to hide themselves. In other words, they have shown not to be able to protect their flock as they should and for which the receive many nice privileges (i.e. tax exempt). Drop the claim they should have informed the congregation but focus on their responsibility to do all they can to protect their people / member, in particular the weak / fragile ones.