By Kay Ebeling
(Hearings in LA Clergy Cases begin again tomorrow in Los Angeles Superior Court, with two motions on calendar for Tuesday September 18th. The City of Angels will be there and continue reporting in this blog.)
In the LA clergy cases settled July 16th, the Archdiocese used more than 18 law firms to fight claims made by sex crime victims in its own churches, to fight families and family members in its own parishes. The settlement was $660 million and the LA Archdiocese may have spent another $660 million preventing justice from going forward.
Out of those 18 law firms not one cogent legal argument against a plaintiffs' case ever came forward. Church Attorneys never denied that the rapes and satanic acts on children's bodies took place. They just got cases dismissed for missed deadlines or because of plaintiffs' confusion as to which is the correct defendant church parish or other entity on which to serve a subpoena.
Over and over again Plaintiffs Requested a Discovery Referee
By July 16th there still was no Discovery Referee
The church was not cooperating at all.
A jury would have seen right through the church attorneys' antics.
As far as I can tell there still no discovery referee one by July 16th settlement
On May 16th was a hearing to compel Monsignor Lirette's Testimony and again at that hearing Plaintiffs' requested a discovery referee. Did plaintiffs ever get a deposition from Lirette?
In a jury trial the church's frivolous motions and obstructive dance in front of the judge would have been obvious. The church had no case, no legal argument to defend itself in any of the plaintiff cases in LA so I'm still stymied as to why they settled before jury trials.
Why did all 520 cases in LA have to settle? And all 108 in San Diego? Why couldn't some 5 percent of the cases against the LA Archdiocese have continued to trial while the other 95 percent ended in pretrial settlements. Why did the settlement have to be global?
Freberg's motion to compel deposition denied
Days Before SettlementsImportant Motion To Compel Documents of St. John's Denied
Motion of plaintiffs to compel deposition of custodian of Records for St. John's Seminary - DENIED
Right before the July 16th settlement.
Doesn't this sounds like Alice in Wonderland came to life in the judge's chambers again?
Defendant argues the court can't order the seminary to produce files prior to an in camera review.
Plaintiff states that since Defendant asserts privacy objection Defendant knows documents have to first be sent for in camera review.