Doe, XX v. Holy See (State of the Vatican City) et al

Filing 26

MOTION to Compel Production of Documents, or in the Alternative, MOTION for In Camera Inspection of Documents and MOTION for Expedited Hearing for a by John Doe, XX. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit "A", # 3 Exhibit "B", # 4Exhibit "C", # 5 Exhibit "D")(Peavy, Felecia) (Attachment 5 replaced on 6/13/2012) (JDL). Modified on 6/13/2012 to correct document orientation and edit text (JDL). Modified on 6/21/2012 to edit text (JDL).

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JOHN DOE XX

§
§
§
§
§

VS.
HOLY SEE (State of the Vatican City), et al

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-651-JJB-DD

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, IN CAMERA INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

NOW INTO COURT comes Plaintiff JOHN DOE XX in the above entitled and numbered
cause, and respectfully requests that the Court order The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of
Baton Rouge (the “Diocese”) to produce the documents and files that are responsive to
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY, INSPECTION AND PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS (the “Discovery Requests”). Alternatively, Plaintiff requests that the Court conduct
an in camera inspection of the Diocese’s documents and files that respond to the Discovery Requests.
In addition, Plaintiff respectfully requests an expedited hearing on this discovery dispute.
I.
On January 16, 2012, Plaintiff served the Diocese with Discovery Requests primarily to
discover —
1) the Diocese’s personnel file of named defendant and former priest, Christopher Joseph
Springer;
2) the Diocese’s personnel files of all priests, employees, and/or clerics accused of sexual
misconduct of minors;
3) the Diocese’s investigative files on all priests, employees, and/or clerics accused of sexual
misconduct of minors;

4) all documents and reports that discuss or relate to allegations that a minor was sexually
exploited or abused by any priest, employee and/or cleric under the control of the Diocese ; and
5) depositions given by Bishop Robert W. Muench and/or his predecessors in any case
involving clergy sexual misconduct against minors.
II.
On May 3, 2012, the Diocese submitted its responses to the Discovery Requests and clarified
the responses on May 31, 2012. The Diocese generally objects to producing its documents and files
by asserting various privileges ranging from the absurd First Amendment to the specious medical
privacy and clergyman privileges and on to the more ridiculous privacy rights in the narrow context
of sex crimes perpetrated against children. As the accompanying Memorandum discusses, none of
the privileges that the Diocese asserts apply in this case, according to the majority of the authority.
In fact, the majority rule holds that Plaintiff is entitled to discover all of the above documents, reports
and files. Plaintiff therefore requests that this Court follow the majority rule and order the Diocese
to produce the documents that respond to the Discovery Requests.
III.
On June 6, 2012, the Diocese further clarified its responses to the Discovery Requests by
providing 16 separate privilege logs. However, the logs fail to comply with the requirements of Rule
26 because there is no information within the logs to determine whether the log entries satisfy each
element of the privileges asserted. With only mere blanket assertions of multiple and triple
privileges and no descriptions in the logs about the nature of the documents that have been withheld,
there is no way to test the merits of each privilege claim. In the event that this Court is not persuaded
by the majority rule that Plaintiff is entitled to the documents described in Section I, Plaintiff
respectfully requests an in camera inspection for this Court to determine if the privileges asserted,
2

in fact, apply in this case.
IV.
October 1, 2012 is the deadline for completing all discovery, except experts, in this case. The
Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s Discovery Requests has created a huge dispute that will not be
resolved in 30 days, which will not leave much time to conduct depositions of the Defendants’
current officials and the employees from the relevant timeframe that remain alive. Plaintiff therefore
requests an expedited hearing to review the discovery dispute with the Court and devise a resolution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JOHN DOE XX, respectfully requests an expedited hearing and an
order compelling the Diocese to produce the above-described documents or alternatively, an incamera inspection of the documents by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDRE LAPLACE
By:

/s/ Andre Laplace
Andre Laplace, La. Bar #08039
2762 Continental Drive, Suite 103
Baton Rouge, La. 70808
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)

FELECIA Y. PEAVY, ESQ.
By:

/s/ Felecia Y. Peavy
Felecia Y. Peavy
Texas Bar No. 15698820
Federal Admissions No. 13530
808 Travis, Ste. 907
Houston, Texas 77002
[phone]
[phone] (FAX)

3

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that I have conferred with counsel for the Roman Catholic Church of the
Diocese of Baton Rouge on more than several occasions without any final resolution of the dispute
at hand.
/S/ Felecia Y. Peavy
Felecia Y. Peavy

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served by electronic
transmission and U.S. Mail on the following counsel pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on this the 12th day of June, 2012.
Don M. Richard
1250 Poydras, Ste. 2450
New Orleans, Louisiana, 70113
Attorney for The Redemptorists/New Orleans Vice Province and
Very Reverend Harry Grile, C.Ss.R., As Provincial of the Redemptorists/Denver Province
C. Michael Pfister
3838 North Causeway Blvd., Ste. 2900
Metaire, Louisiana, 70002
Attorney for The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge and
Most Reverend Robert W. Muench

/s/Felecia Y. Peavy
Felecia Y. Peavy

4