Violia: If the wts does indeed have a LIST... etc. I know they do.
The list you are referring to might be the subject of one of the court orders that Watchtower refused to comply with. Read below.
Chaserious: Also, I have not reviewed every document and listened to every podcast, but it appears any opinions by the appeals courts have not been made available. It is possible- and correct me if I am wrong - that the appeals courts didn't rule on the merits of the discovery orders, e.g. found that it was the correct decision that the documents had to be turned over/ depositions had to be taken, but only held that it wasn't the appropriate time to appeal. Usually, interlocutory appeals are disfavored and you have to wait until final judgment to appeal.
The first reference I saw to the two appeals by Watchtower was in an online newspaper, the U-T San Diego. The quote is near the end of the second page, and this is the link to the article, http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/31/jehovahs-witness-sex-abuse-judgment-lopez/
“Both the state appeals court and state Supreme Court upheld Judge Lewis’ rulings on the court orders, which the Watchtower continued to rebuff.”
This quote makes it appear that it was the Judge’s ruling that was upheld. If that’s really true, it was the merits of the appeal that mattered, not the timing of it. Of course news papers can get details wrong, but there is more.
The second time I heard of the appeals was in an interview with the plantiff’s attorney, Irwin Zalkin, broadcast on Jwpodcast.org. The pod cast is over an hour and 20 min long, but the interview is only about 30 or 40 minutes. It begins at the 11min 30sec mark. After you start the player you can move your cursor along the progress bar to any time you like and click it to skip ahead. http://www.jwpodcast.org/2014/11/03/s01e01-irwin-zalkin/
Here is my transcription of the interview beginning with the question of why Watchtower was barred from participating in the trial. Most of this doesn’t directly address the appeals, but is interesting reading because it addresses the issues that Watchtower didn’t want to comply with. The appeals part is highlighted so you can scan right to it.
(23:44)
Question: In the press statement you said that Watchtower breached a court order which they couldn’t, they were barred from court proceedings, so can you tell us how that came about? What was actually asked from the Watchtower and how long did this go on for?
Zalkin: Sure. In the process of litigation, while we were embroiled in litigation with these guys, in 1997, specifically March of 1997, Watchtower had distributed a letter to all bodies of elders within the United States, some 14,000 congregations, and in that letter they wanted all this information about known child molestors within the organization. They were specifically concerned about their potential for legal action against them and they were trying to gather up all that they could, and they had a whole laundry list of questions and information that they wanted, and instructions on how that information was to be sent to Watchtower, in a special blue envelope, under seal, marked confidential, that sort of thing.
And then again in July of 1998 they sent a follow up letter saying, ‘You know we haven’t been getting all of this from everybody, we’re instructing you to give this to us.’ And they also answered some questions regarding their, the information that hadn’t been coming to them.
We requested the production of all that information because they argued in all of our cases that “You know we just didn’t know then what we know now about child sexual abuse. So what are red flags today were not red flags back then. And we didn’t understand, we didn’t quite get it at that time.”
And, we felt that evidence that they had amassed was highly relevant to show the kind of institutional knowledge that they did have back then. So we, through our process, it’s essentially similar to a subpoena, we subpoenaed that information. They refused to produce that. We made a motion to the court to compel them to produce it. We went through a referee hearing on it; the referee agreed with us. The judge then affirmed the referee’s order, uh, and issued her own order. They refused the trial judge’s order. It went to the court of appeal. They refused the court of appeal order. It went to the California Supreme Court. They refused the California Supreme Court order.
At the same time we also demanded to take the deposition of Gerrit Loesch, who is the longest serving member of the Governing Body. And based on the documents and the evidence the Governing Body is the managing agent. It controls all the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world, including in the United States, and it makes policies, especially sexual abuse policies.
So we argued to the court that it was important for us to get the testimony of Gerritt Loesch to talk about how they came up with their policies, and what their policies were, and the impact of those policies. The court agreed and ordered that they produce Mr. Loesch for a deposition. They refused. They took the matter up to the court of appeal. The court of appeal agreed he should be produced. They refused. They took the matter up to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court agreed that Mr. Loesch should be produced. They refused.
Well you cannot refuse to participate in the process when it suits you, and participate in the process [garbled] when it suits you or doesn’t suit you. In other words if you’re not going to play by the rules then don’t whine if you don’t get to play in the game.
(28.30)
Zalkin continues: In 35 years of being a trial lawyer I have never, ever had a circumstance where a party refused, just simply refused to obey a court order…
Question: [Interupting] Not even the Catholic Church?
Zalkin: Not even the Catholic Church. Whenever they appealed, they went to the Supreme Court on issues but when ultimately they lost they produced [pause] so [pause] these guys feel that they are above the law, they feel that they don’t have to comply with the court orders, that they live in some parallel universe. The court disagreed, and one of the sanctions that’s available under those circumstances is to terminate their defense, and to enter what’s called a default judgment against them. And that’s exactly what she did. She entered a default judgment against them. And then we had to spend 6 days essentially putting on a trial proving our allegations to her and the damages that Jose has suffered. And at the end of that 6 day trial she issued a judgment for 13 and ½ million dollars, 10 ½ million of which are designated as punitive damages, damages to punish Watchtower for it’s reckless and reprehensible conduct.
(42:54)
Question: In the statement from the watchtower they said they would definitely be going ahead with the appeal, so what kind of chances do they have with an appeal?
Zalkin: I think it’s going to be pretty hard to go back to the same courts that didn’t [background laughing and an inaudible word or two] the court's order in the first place, to now come back and say the judge abused her discretion. It’s almost comical but that’s what they’ll do. They will do that, they have the right to appeal, and the will get their day in court on an appeal…
[END of interview quotes]
I don't believe anyone here has suggested that Watchtower won't have an appeal, or that they will lose the appeal. The truth is you never know what a court will say until a court says it. But Zalkin's case is strong, and there is no particular reason to believe he will lose either. The real celebrating will happen when the case is finished, if Watchtower loses.
As a side point, he mentioned there are 20 or more cases that his firm is handling against Watchtower. A few of them are in Conneticut, Vermont, Ohio, New Mexico, currently filing one in Oregon, and several more in California. Most of these are milti-victim cases.
He mentioned there are many in the pipeline that will be coming out as well. I'm not sure if these in the pipeline are part of the 20+ or if they are additional.
At any rate, Watchtower is going to have it's hands full. He said the current case, along with the Conti case, is the tip of the iceburg.
