SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CENTRAL
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 01/06/2017 TIME: 10:00:00 AM
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Gregory W Pollack
CLERK: Terry Ray
REPORTER/ERM: Lorena Barron, CSR#12058, 619-233-2030
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: L. VVilks
DEPT: C-71
CASE NO: 37-2012-00099849-CU-PO-CTL CASE INIT.DATE: 06/29/2012
CASE TITLE: Lopez vs. Doe 1 Linda Vista Church [IMAGED]
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other
EVENT TYPE: Motion Hearing (Civil)
MOVING PARTY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Protective Order, 12/13/2016
APPEARANCES
Devin M Storey, counsel, present for Respondent on Appeal,Plaintiff(s).
Francis J McNamara, counsel, present for Defendant(s).
Dean A. Olson, specially appearing for counsel Beth A Kahn, present for
Defendant,Appellant,Plaintiff(s).
Irwin M. Zalkin, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s).
The Court orally advises the parties of its tentative ruling, after which oral argument is conducted. Upon
completion of oral argument, the court makes the below ruling:
1NTRODUCTION.
The issues before the court are the following:
1. The nature and extent of any protective order to govern defendant's production of documents
responsive to item request numbers 5 and 12 in plaintiffs notice of deposition of defendant's person
most qualified; and
2. Whether the production of documents (post-March 2001) now in the physical possession of non-party
CCJW can be compelled through a discovery request on Watchtower, or must plaintiff subpoena the
records directly from CCJW.
PROTECTIVE ORDER
DATE: 01/06/2017 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: C-71 Calendar No. 17
CASE TITLE: Lopez vs. Doe 1 unda Vista Church CASE NO: ;S(-2012-00099849-CU-PO-CTL
[IMAGED]
The court has carefully considered all briefings submitted by both sides. In addition, the court
has carefully reviewed the recently published appellatp opinion in this case, Lopez v. Watchtower Bible &
Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4tn 566.
Both sides agree that the production of the subject documents can be properly subject to a
protective order. The dispute is over the precise nature and extent of the "third party" redactions.
The court does believe that a protective order is appropriate. Further, the court does not believe
that Judge Lewis' contemplated redaction of third-party identifying information, upheld by the appellate
court, was limited, or even ought to be limited, to alleged victims. The court adopts Watchtower's
proposed protective order subject to the below-described modifications:
In lieu of paragraph 1 proposed by Watchtower, the following shall constitute paragraph 1:
Defendant Watchtower may redact the following from documents responsive to request number
12, which includes documents responsive to request number 5, in plaintiff Jose Lopez's notice of
deposition of defendant Watchtower's person most qualified ("responsive documents'):
I. All names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers and
other identifying information of any alleged victim of childhood sexual abuse. Individuals subject to
these redactions shall be referred to by pseudonym, e.g., V1, V2, etc.
2. All names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers and
other identifying information of any alleged childhood sexual abuse perpetrators who have not
admitted or conceded having committed childhood sexual abuse, have not been reported to a police
agency by Watchtower or a Jehovah's Witness congregation member for committing childhood sexual
abuse, or have not been criminally charged or prosecuted for having committed childhood sexual abuse.
Individuals subject to these redactions shall be referred to by pseudonyms, e.g., P1, P2, etc.
3. Identities of any congregation, except those congregations where membership includes one
or more alleged perpetrators who have admitted or conceded to having committed childhood sexual
abuse, have been reported to a police agency by Watchtower or a Jehovah's Witness congregation
member for having committed childhood abuse, or have been criminally charged or prosecuted for having
committed childhood sexual abuse. Unless coming within one of these exceptions for which redaction is
not permissible, congregations shall be referred to by pseudonyms, e.g., Cl, C2, etc.
4. The names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers and
other identifying information of any non-victim/non-perpetrator witnesses. Individuals subject to these
redactions shall be referred to by pseudonym, e.g., W1, W2, etc.
The last sentence of paragraph 11 in the proposed protective order of Watchtower is stricken
("Because documents responsive to request no. 12 are responsive to request no. 5, no further response
to request no. 5 is required.").
CCJW DOCUMENTS
CCP §2031.010 requires production of evidence in a party's "possession, custody, or control."
DATE: 01/06/2017 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: C-71 Calendar No. 17
CASE TITLE: Lopez vs. Doe 1 Linda Vista Church CASE NO: 37-2012-00099849-CU-PO-CIL
[IMAGED]
That two entities may be related or in some fashion affiliated does not necessarily mean that a document
request served upon one obligates it to produce documents in the possession, custody, or control of
another. For example, in People ex. reL Lockyer v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4t 11 1060,
1076-1077, the court held, in an action by the State of California against vision companies for violation of
statutes governing the practice of optometry, that the vision companies' request for documents served
on the State of California did not require production of documents from any state agency.
CCJW, which evidently has the post-March 2001 documents, is not a party to this action.
Watchtower does not have possession, custody or control over non-party CCJWs documents and
cannot produce them. Watchtower does not have access to or control of the records of the United
States Branch Service Department post-March 2001. Post-March 2001, Watchtower ceased working
with the Service Department, with CCJW taking over that function. CCJW and Watchtower are
separate corporations, each with its own separate and distinct Board of Directors and bank accounts.
Neither has authority over the other. Presumably, they could sue each other.
Should plaintiff wish to obtain documents in the possession, custody, or control of non-party CCJW,
plaintiff will need to proceed by way of a subpoena upon this non-party. However, if post-March 2011
documents were, in fact, sent to Watchtower, of which it now has possession, custody or control, such
documents need to be produced by Watchtower, subject to the redactions specified in section II, supra.
IV,
FUTURE DATES
- March 3, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. — Hearing on plaintiffs motion for sanctions
- April 10, 2017— Deadline to produce category 12 documents
- April 14, 20917 at 10:00 a.m. — Hearing on defendant's motion for summary judgment
- June 15, 2017— Deadline to produce category 5 documents
(1,144k-
Judge Gregory W Pollack
Below is the proposed order
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Case No. 37-2012-00099849-CU-PO-CTL
(PROPOSED' ORDER GRANTING
MOTION OF DEFENDANT WATCHTOWER
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW
YORK, INC. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Assigned to: Hon. Gregory W. Pollack
Date: January 6, 2017
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept.: 71
Trial Date: None
JOSE LOPEZ, an Individual,
Plaintiff,
V.
DOE 1, LINDA VISTA CHURCH; DOE 2,
SUPERVISORY ORGANIZATION; DOE 3,
PERPETRATOR; and DOES 4 through 100,
inclusive,
Defendants
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANT WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF
NEW YORK, INC. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
The Motion of Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. for a
Protective Order came on regularly for hearing on January 6, 2017 1 at 10:00 a.m., in Department 71
of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Gregory W. Pollack presiding. Appearances were stated
on the record at the time of the hearing. After consideration of the papers and evidence submitted and
argument of counsel, and good cause appearing therefore, the Motion is GRANTED. The Court
orders as follows:
I. Defendant Watchtower may redact the following from documents responsive to
requests no.12, which includes documents responsive to request no. 5, in Plaintiff Jose
Lopez's notice of deposition of Defendant Watchtower's person most qualified
("Responsive Documents"): information that identifies alleged victims of childhood
sexual abuse, including, but not limited to names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
telephone numbers and social security numbers of third-parties, regardless of whether
such third-party is an entity or natural person.
2. Responsive Documents shall be designated and marked "CONFIDENTIAL" by
Defendant Watchtower in the header and the footer in a manner that will not obscure
the textual content of the document.
3. The Responsive Documents, including any and all documents and information
contained therein, shall be maintained in confidence by Plaintiff's attorneys and shall
be used for the sole and exclusive purpose of Plaintiff's attorneys' preparation for
depositions, as exhibits to motions and/or oppositions and replies to motions, and at
trial of this case. Plaintiff's counsel may inform the Court in other litigation against
Defendant Watchtower that Defendant Watchtower has produced the Responsive
Documents in this case but may not reveal, refer to or characterize the content of the
documents.
4. The Responsive Documents shall not be disclosed or copied in any form to any person
or entity (except to the extent reasonably necessary to Plaintiff's attorneys' regularly
employed staff and contracted personnel subject to the provisions of paragraph 9) for
any other purpose other than those set forth in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 below.
[PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANT WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
OF NEW YORK, INC. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
5. Plaintiffs attorneys may scan, OCR, and/or store digital images of the Responsive
Documents on Plaintiffs attorneys' password-protected in-house and Cloud-based
servers ("the Servers"). The digitized versions of the Responsive Documents may be
downloaded from the Servers to individual desktop or laptop computers owned, or
temporarily leased, by Plaintiff's attorneys' law firm as needed to database, analyze,
code, abstract, prepare exhibits, or otherwise manipulate the data contained within the
Responsive Documents. Plaintiff's attorneys may provide a hard copy version and/or
encrypted electronic copy of the Responsive Documents, or any data analyses or
exhibits created therefrom, to their experts or consultants and may use or transmit
Responsive Documents in an encrypted electronic format for purposes solely related to
this litigation. Plaintiff's experts and/or consultants may similarly store digital images
of the Responsive Documents on their own in-house, Cloud-based, or other servers,
and download such digitized images to desktop or laptop computers owned or leased
by the expert and/or consultant, as reasonably necessary to complete the work
commissioned by Plaintiff in this case.
6. If Plaintiff submits any Responsive Documents to the Court, such Responsive
Documents shall be lodged "CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL" as allowed by Rule
2.551(b)(3)(A) of the California Rules of Court. Thereafter, all parties reserve all
rights granted by Rules 2.550-2.551 of the California Rules of Court to file or oppose a
motion to seal or unseal the Responsive Documents.
7. Any Responsive Documents presented at trial shall be lodged "CONDITIONALLY
UNDER SEAL" as allowed by Rule 2.551(b)(3)(A) of the California Rules of Court.
Thereafter, all parties reserve all rights granted by Rules 2.550-2.551 of the California
Rules of Court to file or oppose a motion to seal or unseal the Responsive Documents.
8 Plaintiff's attorneys of record and any other person or entity provided with Responsive
Documents pursuant to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 above shall return the Responsive
Documents to counsel for Defendant Watchtower, and shall permanently delete the
Responsive Documents from any computer or electronic storage device, upon the later
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANT WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
OF NEW YORK, INC. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
of:
(a) Thirty (30) calendar days following a written demand for return of the
Responsive Documents. Such written demand may be made at any time following
the conclusion of this case, including any appellate proceedings. For purposes of
this paragraph, notice to Plaintiff's attorneys shall constitute notice to all persons
or entities to whom the Responsive Documents were transmitted; or
(b) Thirty (30) calendar days following the denial of a motion to dissolve or
modify this Protective Order and the exhaustion of any appellate procedures
thereafter. If, however, a motion to dissolve or modify the Protective Order is
granted in such a manner as conflicts in whole or in part with this paragraph, the
subsequent order controls. Any work product referring to Responsive Documents
shall be subject to this Protective Order.
9. Any person, other than the Court or its officers, to whom Responsive Documents are
disclosed or shown pursuant to paragraphs 4 or 5 shall be informed, prior to disclosure
or showing, of the nature and scope of this Protective Order, and of his or her
obligation to keep the Responsive Documents in confidence, and shall sign a statement
and certification agreeing to comply with the terms of this Protective Order.
10. This Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all disputes, including motions for
sanctions, pertaining to or arising out of violations of this Protective Order and all
parties and their attorneys agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect
to any such dispute. This Protective Order shall continue to be binding after the
conclusion of this case except that a party may seek the written permission of
Defendant Watchtower or further order of the Court with respect to dissolution or
modification of this Protective Order.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF DEFENDANT WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
OF NEW YORK, INC. FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Dated:
•
II. Defendant Watchtower's compliance with document requests no. 12 in Jose Lopez's
deposition notice of Defendant Watchtower's person most qualified does not require
Defendant Watchtower to produce documents that post-date March 2001. Because
documents responsive to request no. 12 are responsive to request no. 5, no further
response to request no. 5 is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Hon. Gregory W. Pollack
Judge of the Superior Court