Doe 1 v. Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Background

The plaintiffs, Jane Does 1–100, brought claims under New York’s Child Victims Act concerning hundreds of alleged incidents of sexual abuse they experienced as children from approximately 1964 to 1970. The defendants included the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, the Sisters of Charity of Montreal, the Diocese of Fall River, the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate Eastern Province, and the Sisters of Charity of Quebec.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 20, 2022. While the defendants’ motions to dismiss were pending and before briefing was complete, the plaintiffs sought expedited discovery. Expedited discovery is discovery allowed before the normal schedule when the circumstances make that request reasonable and supported by good cause.

Requests for Discovery

The plaintiffs requested an immediate deposition of non-party Arthur Craig. They alleged that Craig had abused plaintiffs, had been present at relevant locations during some or all of the period at issue, and had been under the control of the Missionary Oblates. The plaintiffs also pointed to Craig’s age—94—and expressed concern about memory loss, health problems, or death affecting his future availability.

The plaintiffs separately sought the identities and locations of all living priests, nuns, employees, and agents employed or controlled by the defendants who were likely to have direct personal knowledge of the alleged abuse, along with expedited depositions of those people. The plaintiffs said the discovery would help preserve aging witnesses’ testimony and establish personal jurisdiction and New York as a proper venue.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits discovery of relevant, nonprivileged information that is proportional to the needs of the case. The court considered the reasonableness of the requests, the surrounding circumstances, and the potential prejudice to both sides.

As to Craig, the court found that the plaintiffs had not shown a valid, narrow reason for an immediate deposition. The Missionary Oblates had not moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue; its motion to dismiss was based instead on the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to file within the revival period authorized by the Child Victims Act. The plaintiffs also did not explain how Craig’s testimony would be relevant to the other defendants’ motions. The court further held that Craig’s advanced age, without a narrower need for the deposition, was insufficient by itself to justify expedited discovery. The requested deposition would require the Missionary Oblates to locate Craig, prepare him for questioning, and defend the deposition before document discovery, creating unreasonable burdens and prejudice.

The court reached the same conclusion about the request for information concerning other living witnesses. It found that the request was not truly limited because it covered any living individual who might have witnessed events occurring during a six-year period more than 50 years earlier. Locating those people, gathering relevant documents, preparing them for depositions, and defending the depositions would be burdensome and unreasonable at that stage.

The court also rejected the request insofar as it sought jurisdictional discovery. It found that the requested information went substantially to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims and that the plaintiffs had not made a sufficient initial showing of personal jurisdiction. The court therefore declined to analyze the motion as a request for jurisdictional discovery at that point.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery in both forms: the deposition of Arthur Craig and disclosure of the identities and locations of other living priests, nuns, employees, and agents with direct personal knowledge of the claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at docket entry 59. This order did not decide the pending motions to dismiss or the underlying abuse claims. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order.