McLean v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Background

Six plaintiffs—Joseph McLean, Paul Dunn, Phillip DiWilliams, Darin Buckman, Mark Pinkosh, and Troy Franks—alleged that ordained Catholic priests engaged in unpermitted sexual contact with or sexually abused them. They asserted public-nuisance and nuisance claims against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), alleging that it failed to uphold commitments concerning clergy sexual abuse, concealed criminal activity, failed to report abuse allegations, and otherwise endangered children.

The complaint alleged federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. It alleged that the USCCB’s principal place of business was in Washington, D.C., and that the organization transacted business in every state, including Minnesota. Only Joseph McLean was alleged to reside in Minnesota.

The USCCB moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that it lacked sufficient minimum contacts with Minnesota. The plaintiffs argued that the USCCB had both general jurisdiction—based on continuous contacts—and specific jurisdiction—based on activities directed at Minnesota that contributed to their alleged injuries. They sought discovery about the USCCB’s Minnesota contacts before the court ruled on the dismissal motion.

Requested discovery and court guidance

The plaintiffs initially proposed 24 interrogatories, 20 document requests, and depositions of Cardinal Daniel DiNardo and Theresa Ridderhoff. The requests included all communications between the USCCB and officers, directors, or managing agents of the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis from 1950 to the present, and all documents concerning the USCCB’s presence or activities in Minnesota during that period.

At a hearing, the court held the motion in abeyance and instructed the plaintiffs to provide no more than 10 interrogatories and five document requests that were specific, focused, and tailored to their personal-jurisdiction arguments. The court also instructed the parties to meet and confer. The parties remained at an impasse.

The plaintiffs’ revised requests changed the period from 1950–present to 2000–present but still sought broad categories of correspondence, documents about sexual-misconduct policies and allegations, communications systems, transactions in Minnesota, financial transactions, and communications concerning sexual misconduct.

Analysis

Personal jurisdiction generally requires sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state so that exercising jurisdiction is consistent with fair treatment. The court explained that jurisdictional discovery may be appropriate when a party presents documentary evidence—not merely speculation or conclusory allegations—concerning the opposing party’s contacts with the forum.

The court found that the plaintiffs had identified several alleged Minnesota contacts: USCCB policies and canon laws applicable to dioceses nationwide, Minnesota bishops who were or had been USCCB members or leaders, donations and other revenue from Minnesota dioceses, and federal tax-exempt status extended to Minnesota dioceses through an Internal Revenue Service group exemption. The court emphasized that these contacts existed in every state and were not specific to Minnesota.

The court concluded that the revised requests remained too broad and showed that the plaintiffs were searching for possible contacts rather than seeking focused information about contacts already supported by evidence. The court also determined that the requested discovery was disproportionate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). It considered the burden and expense of locating the information, the USCCB’s lack of access to some requested communications, the likely benefit of the discovery, and the fact that the parties agreed the USCCB could be sued in the District of Columbia.

Disposition

The court held that the requested jurisdictional discovery was not proportional to the needs of the case and the issues before it. It ordered that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery was DENIED.

The order addressed only the discovery request. It did not decide the USCCB’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the merits of the plaintiffs’ public-nuisance or nuisance claims, or whether the alleged Minnesota contacts were sufficient to establish jurisdiction.