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

Filing 27

RESPONSE and Objection to 25 Joint MOTION to Quash Amended Notice of Intention to Take Deposition by Written Questions and/or Subpoena for Records for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Request for Expedited Hearing filed by John Doe, XX. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit "A", # 2 Exhibit Exhibit "B", # 3 Exhibit Exhibit "C")(Peavy, Felecia) (Attachment 3 replaced on 6/14/2012 to correct page orientation) (DCB). Modified on 6/14/2012 to modify docket entry title to match pleading (DCB).

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 RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO
QUASH AMENDED NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN
QUESTIONS AND/OR SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS FOR THE UNITED STATES
CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND
REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
JOHN DOE XX, Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause, files this his Response
and Objection to the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Quash Amended Notice of Intention to Take
Deposition by Written Questions and/or Subpoena for Records for the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops and would respectfully request an expedited hearing to show the Court as follows:
I.
Plaintiff’s pleadings allege that a 1962 policy procedure for “Cases on Solicitation” set in
motion a course of action that was deliberate and systematic and erupted in scandal in the U.S. in
2002. See Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, ¶¶ 52 - 61. The 1962 policy was to be followed by all
dioceses and archdioceses, bishops and archbishops as the official response to what was then known
as a widespread “problem” involving the clergy and children.
In the wake of the public disgust about the incidents of child sexual abuse that have
continued to be uncovered following the scandal in 2002, the governing body for all dioceses and
archdioceses in the United States established a new official response to the widespread “problem”.
See http://usccb.org/about/child-and-youth-protection/who-we-are.cfm.

Every diocese and

archdiocese would submit an annual report to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

(“USCCB”) providing various information about the child sexual abuse cases that had been reported
to the diocese or archdiocese during the year. The USCCB was then to compile the data and
information collected from the dioceses and archdioceses and prepare an annual report for the body
and the general public. Id.
This annual data and information is relevant and material to Plaintiff’s allegations on the
1962 policy procedure and would be helpful in both establishing and verifying the pattern and
practices related to the Diocese of Baton Rouge’s response to “Cases on Solicitation” in the Diocese.
Plaintiff is requesting the data and information that the USCCB has collected from the Diocese of
Baton Rouge from 2002 to the present.
II.
As instructed by this Court, on May 8, 2012 Plaintiff served a “modified version” of a
previous records request on the “USCCB” via a proper subpoena. See Subpoena in a Civil Case
and other relevant documents attached hereto as Exhibit A. While the records request to third party
USCCB seeks the same information from Defendant Diocese of Baton Rouge via a request for
production of documents, neither request is contrary to any applicable discovery rule.
III.
The Diocese has objected to its document request by asserting an assortment of privileges
for the USCCB documents and providing a privilege log that is nevertheless replete with blanket
assertions. Each log entry lists “Clergyman Privilege/First Amendment/Right to Privacy” as a
privilege or objection. See Conference of Bishop Documents Log attached hereto as Exhibit B.
However, as discussed in Plaintiff’s memorandum accompanying a recently filed motion to compel
the USCCB documents and others, the log on the USCCB documents is entirely inadequate to assess
2

the merits of each privilege claim. See Memorandum in Support at 3 - 8 attached hereto as Exhibit
C. Furthermore, the majority rule indicates that these privileges would not apply to the USCCB
documents and that Plaintiff is entitled to the documents. See Memorandum in Support at 4 - 8.
Therefore, the USCCB should respond to the subpoena.
IV.
October 1, 2012 is the deadline for completing all discovery, except experts, in this case. The
Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and this records request have 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 this discovery dispute with the Court and
devise a resolution.
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 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