Doe I et al v. Boy Scouts of America et al

Filing 559

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. The motion to exclude evidence of post-abuse conduct (docket no. 359 ), the motion to exclude pre-1966 conduct (docket no. 360 ), and the motion re post-representation evidence (docket no. 381 ) are DENIED without prejudice to the rights of defendants to raise objections to the evidence at trial. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (alw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JOHN DOES I-XIX, and JOHN
ELLIOTT,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00275-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA, a
congressionally chartered corporation
authorized to do business in Idaho;
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING
BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS
CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, a
foreign corporation sole registered to do
business in Idaho; and CORPORATION
OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER-DAY SAINTS AND
SUCCESSORS, a foreign corporation
registered to do business in Idaho,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it (1) a motion filed by the Church to exclude evidence of
post-abuse conduct, (2) a motion filed by the Church to exclude evidence of pre-1966
conduct, and (3) a motion by BSA (joined by the Church) to exclude evidence of postrepresentation evidence. The motions are fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons
explained below, the Court will deny the motions.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

ANALYSIS
The Church’s motion to exclude evidence of post-abuse conduct seeks to exclude
(1) any evidence that Larren Arnold – who abused Doe XII – abused other Scouts after
the last date of his abuse of Doe XII, and (2) any evidence related to abuse perpetrated by
other scout leaders in Church-sponsored scout troops that occurred after Doe XII’s abuse.
The Church has also filed a motion to exclude any evidence of pre-1966 conduct,
specifically conduct in 1964 regarding Arnold’s abuse of another Scout. BSA’s motion
(in which the Church has joined) seeks to exclude any evidence related to abuse of Doe
XII that postdates defendants’ alleged misrepresentations or, in the alternative, any
evidence of abuse occurring after the first instance of abuse.
The date Doe XII claims he was first abused by Arnold was in the fall of 1974,
following his twelfth birthday in October 1974. See Doe XII Deposition (Dkt. No. 30015) at p. 61. The second and final abuse took place about a month or two after the first
abuse. Id.
The Court has scheduled a jury trial for July 29, 2019, limited to the issue of
whether Doe XII settled his claims with BSA and the Church by signing separate release
agreements with each defendant. A follow-on trial to resolve Doe XII’s constructive
fraud claim will occur only if that first jury finds that Doe XII did not settle his
constructive fraud claims. Moreover, defendants’ statute of limitations defense will not
be tried as part of the trial on the settlement issue – the limitations issue will instead be
tried as part of the constructive fraud trial if no settlement is found.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Because the only issue currently set for trial is the settlement issue, the Court need
not decide now whether post-abuse, post-misrepresentation, or pre-1966 conduct is
relevant to anything other than the settlement issue. That issue is simple. Doe XII signed
separate release agreements with BSA and the Church. As to the Church, the issue is
whether the release agreement signed by Doe XII “expresses the unambiguous intention
of the parties to preclude Doe XII from bringing a constructive fraud claim.” See
Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 240) at p. 6. Doe XII will argue that the intent and
language of the agreement is limited to claims arising from the abuse and does not
include claims arising from constructive fraud. The Church will counter that both claims
were included in the agreement.
With regard to BSA, Doe XII will argue that the release agreement he signed is
limited to claims arising from an “accident,” an ambiguous term that Doe XII argues
does not include claims for constructive fraud. BSA will argue otherwise.
In other words, the settlement issue as to the Church and BSA will turn on the
intent of the parties and the language of two separate release agreements. While there
was some brief discussion in the motions, there was no in-depth analysis of how postabuse conduct, post-misrepresentation conduct, or pre-1966 conduct relates (or does not
relate) to the intent of the parties in signing the release agreements at issue. The result is
that the Court does not have the briefing it needs to make an informed decision on these
motions to exclude. Moreover, even with further briefing, the Court would most likely
wait until trial to see the evidence proffered in context before it could issue a ruling.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motions at this time, without prejudice to the rights
of defendants to object to the evidence during the settlement trial.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to exclude
evidence of post-abuse conduct (docket no. 359), the motion to exclude pre-1966 conduct
(docket no. 360), and the motion re post-representation evidence (docket no. 381) are
DENIED without prejudice to the rights of defendants to raise objections to the evidence
at trial.

DATED: May 14, 2019
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4