Spina v. Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes of Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, Inc.

Background

The action involves Spina’s allegations that Sister Alice, a member of the Congregation, sexually abused Spina as a child. Spina alleged that the Congregation was negligent in hiring, training, retaining, and supervising Sister Alice. The parties also disputed the nature and extent of the Congregation’s control over Sister Alice, including in connection with the Congregation’s prior motion challenging personal jurisdiction.

During jurisdictional discovery, the Congregation’s General Secretary testified that when a sister in perpetual vows left the Congregation prematurely, various documents would be created, including a letter to the mother general and a similar letter to the pope. The General Secretary testified that such letters would contain, at least, what the departing sister stated about her reason for leaving. Spina sought production of a letter Sister Alice wrote concerning her departure from the Congregation in 1968.

Discovery dispute

The Congregation initially produced no documents in response to Spina’s document requests. After the parties resolved most discovery issues and the court entered a protective order, the Congregation produced some documents but continued to withhold Sister Alice’s letter. It objected that production would violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and later referred to unspecified privileges under the First Amendment and Catholic canon law. The Congregation also proposed that the court conduct a private review of the letter before deciding whether it was relevant.

Spina moved to compel production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Spina argued that the letter was directly relevant to the circumstances of Sister Alice’s departure, the negligence claims, and the issue of the Congregation’s control over Sister Alice. Spina also argued that a private court review was not appropriate without a valid privilege claim and supporting evidence.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that producing a resignation letter, even one required by canon law, did not implicate the Free Exercise Clause. The court explained that the case did not involve interpreting religious doctrine or resolving an internal church dispute; it involved alleged sexual abuse and related negligence claims.

The court also found the letter relevant under Rule 26(b)(1), which generally permits discovery of nonprivileged information relevant to a party’s claims or defenses. The court emphasized that information need not already be admissible at trial to be discoverable.

The court rejected the request for an in-camera review, meaning a private review by the judge. It found that the Congregation had not identified a valid legal basis for treating the letter as privileged and had not shown a genuine dispute requiring such review. The court further concluded that requiring the court to screen the letter for relevance before production would cause unnecessary delay, prejudice Spina, and burden the court.

Disposition

Judge Sarah Netburn granted Spina’s motion to compel. The Congregation was directed to produce Sister Alice’s letter.