Doe 2 v. Superior Court

Good Law
132 Cal. App. 4th 1504·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1537·2005 Daily Journal DAR 11845·34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 458·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8743
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2005B179588California6,318 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cooper, J.

This writ proceeding concerns a discovery dispute in an action brought against four local United Methodist churches by three persons who allege they were sexually abused as minors in the 1970’s by a probationary clergy member of one of the churches. The trial court granted motions by the plaintiffs to compel one of the churches to provide further responses to interrogatories and to produce documents in response to a production request. In doing so, the court rejected the church’s claims based on the clergy-penitent privilege (Evid. Code, § 1034), the privacy rights of third parties, and the attorney-client privilege.

We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in certain respects and that it failed to properly analyze the church’s clergy-penitent privilege assertion. Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and direct the trial court to reconsider the motions in accordance with the views expressed herein.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Lawsuit.

Real parties in interest Mark Calkins, Robert Pugh and Todd Stocking filed this action in October 2003 against four United Methodist churches: Doe 1, a Methodist church in West Sacramento; Doe 2, a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.