decrescenzo v. scientology: defendant's statement in advance of status conference

8/13/2019 DeCrescenzo v. Scientology: Defendant's Statement in Advance of Status Conference

1/14

f,1Co

M

end al lBrillKliegerLLP100 SantaMonicaBlvd .

ite1725s Angeles CA 90067

1

2

3456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

KENDALL BRILL & KLIEGERLLPBertH .Deixler(70614)bdeixler@kbktrm .comNicholasF.Daum(236155)[email protected]. Suite1725LosAngeles,California90067Telephone :310.556.2700Facsim ile:310.556.2705RABINOWITZ,BOUDIN ,STANDARD ,KRINSKY&LIEBERMAN ,LLPEricM .Lieberman{prohacvice)45Broadway Suite1700NewYork,NY10006Telephone :212.254.1111Facsim ile : 212 .674 .4614AttorneysforDefendantCHURCHOFSCIENTOLOG YINTERNAT IONAL

mxryoviosA NeeLw

John A. CUrkeJ Jxeoutive GlRc/CM cY

JEFF ER,MANGELS BUTLER &MITCHELL ,LLPRobertE.Mangels(48291)MatthewD .Hinks(200750)190 0AvenueoftheStars,Seventh FloorLosAngeles California90067Telephone : 310.203.8080Facsimile : 310.203.0567AttorneysforDefendantRELIGIOUSTECHNOLOGY CENTER

SUPERIORCOURTOFTHESTATEOFCAL IFORNIACOUNTY OFLOSANGELES,CENTRALDISTRICT

LAURA ANN DeCRESCENZO ,Plaintiff,

v .

CHURCH OFSCIENTOLOGYINTERNATIONAL ,acorporateentity,RELIGIOU STECHNOLOGY CENTER ,previouslysuedhereinasDoeNo.1 aCaliforniaCorporation ,andDOES2-20,

Defendants.

Case N o .BC411018AssignedforAllPurposestotheHon.RonaldSohigian,Dept .41DEFENDANTS,STA TEM ENT INADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCEDate: November12,2013T ime : 8:30a.m .Judge :Hon.RonaldSohigianDept.:41ActionFiled :TrialDate : April2 ,2009N otset

162450. 1DEFENDANTS'STATEMENTINADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCE


2/14

CO

to

1

2

345

6789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

en dallBril lKliegerLLP100 SantaMon icaBlvd .

ite1725s An geles, CA 90067

DefendantsChurchof ScientologyInternational(CSI)andReligiousTechnologyCenter(RTC),submitthefollowingstatementinadvanceof theCourtsNovember12,2013,statusconference .

Insummary Defendantsproposethefollowingschedule:(a)ahearingonDefendantsmotionunderCod eof CivilProcedure128concerningFirstAmendmentissuesandthestructureof proof governinganytrial inearlyFebruary2014;(b)ahearingonDefendants anticipatedsecondsummary judgmentmotion inapproximatelyMay2014 ;(c)atrial totheCourt of theequitableestoppelissue inapproximatelySeptember2014 andlastingapproximately5-10courtdays;(d)ameritstrialset forapproximatelyJanuary2015lasting30-60courtdays.Thebasisforthisschedu leisdescribedbelow .

A .TheCour tM ustDeterm ineTheEffectOfTheFirstAmendmentOnTheProofWellBeforeAnyTrialOnTheIssueOfEqu itableEstoppelDefendantsasktheCourt toschedulea bench trialon theissueof whethertheirstatuteof

lim itationsdefenseisbarredbythedoctrineof equitableestoppel .Inadvanceof suchatrial,however thereremaincritical andcomplex issuesof theapplicationof thefederalandCaliforn iaconstitutionalprotectionsof freedomof religiontotheproceedings. These concernsimplicatetheministerialexception andothercriticalFirstAmendmentlaw theCourt'sentanglement in

\

determ iningissuesof religiouscontroversy anddefendants'constitutionally-m andatedimmunityfromintrusionintomattersof religiousdoctrineor practicebythelega lsystem . SeeHopeInt lUniv .v .SuperiorCourt 119Cal .App.4th719 730(2004)(Becauseof theverynatureof the[FirstAmendmentm inisterial]exception itentailsanimmunityon thepartof areligiousinstitu tionromtheintrusiveexaminationintoreligiousdoctrineinherentin thesuit . Suchanimmunityimplicatesasomewhatstrongerinterest than themoretypical[]situationwherealitigantissimplyass ertingtherighttowinatthesummary judgment level...Theveryprocessofreviewitself threatenstoentanglethecourt in asectariancon troversy.);seealso NewYorkv .CathedralAcademy 434U.S.125 133(1977)(Theprospect of churchandstatelitigatingincourtaboutwhatdoesordoesnothavereligiousmeaningtouchestheverycoreof theconstitutionalguaranteeagainstreligiousestablishment);SerbianEasternOrthodoxDiocesev .162450. 1DEFENDANTS,STATEMENTIN ADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCE


3/14

1

23456789

101112

13141516171819202 122232425262728

endal lBri llKliegerLLP0100 SantaMon icaBlvd .

uite1725s Angeles,CA 90067

Milivojevich 426U.S .696 713(1976)(questionsof churchdisciplineand thecompo sitionofthechurch hierarchyareatthecoreof ecc lesiastical concern).

Here suchquestionsgothecoreof theevidenceandargumenttheplaintiff hassuggestedshewillofferattrialon theequitableestoppelissue. Theplaintiff hassuggested ,interalia,thatherownreligiousbeliefsduringthetimeshewasam inisterwithin theChurchof Scientology herperformanceof herministerialdutieswithin theChurch andtheChurchof Scientologyspoliciesregardinginclusionorexclusionof form ermembers aredirectlyrelevanttoherassertion thatthedoctrineof equitableestoppelbarstheapplicationof defendants s tatuteof limitationsdefense.Underplaintiff stheoryof thecase,matterssuchasScientologydoctrine,teachings,practices,andbeliefscouldall besubjecttoexaminationattheequitableestoppeltrial .

Accordingly,defendantsproposetoraise theissueof theapplicationof theFirstAmendmenttothese proceedingsbyamotion underCod eof CivilProcedu re128,whichallowstheCourtto providefortheorderlyconductof proceedingsbeforeit andto con trolitsprocessandorderssoastomakethemconformtolawand justice. Here sucha rulingisnecessarygiventheCaliforniaandUnitedStatesSupremeCourts strict commandthatcourts indisputesinvolvingreligiousorganizations refrain from determiningissuesinvolvingecc lesiasticaldiscipline, faith, custom and law. SeeInreEpiscopal ChurchCases 45Cal .4th467 484(2009)(citing Watsonv .Jones 80U.S .(13Wall .)679 714(1871)).Thismotion willaddresstheextenttowhichsuchissuescanserveasthefactualfoundationof plaintiffsequitableestoppelassertionandtheextenttowhichevidenceonsuchissuescan bepresentedattrial . TheCourt'srulingonsuchamotion willestablish the groundrules fortrialonequitableestoppel(and also onanytrialonliability)andisalsonecessa rytoguidethepartiesindiscoveryincludingexpertdiscovery .As just oneexample,dependingontheCourt'srulingonthese issues,itmaybenecessaryfordefendantstoretainexpertsoncomparativereligioninordertoexplain theroleof ecclesiasticaldisciplineand/orexcommunicationaspart of thepracticesof thereligiousorderin which plaintiff wasamember.TheCourtshouldresolveissuesconcerningtheapplicationof theFirstAmendmenttotheproceedings andprovideguidelinesastowhat areas

162450.1DEFENDANTS,STATEM ENTIN ADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCE


4/14

1

2

345

6789

10111213141516171819202 1222324252627

28endallBril lKliegerLLP100SantaMonica Blvd.

ite1725s Angeles CA 90067

willandwillnotbeimmunefromexam ination soonerratherthanlater .Defendantsproposethatthismotion beheardinFebruary,2014.

B .Defend antsA lsoIntendToFileA SecondSummaryJudgmentM otion ,W h ichShou ldBeH eardBeforeTheBenchTrial

Inadd ition totheproposedmotionon theapplicationof theFirst Amendmenttoquestionsof proof DefendantsalsointendtofileaMotionforSummaryJudgment and/orSummaryAdjudicationonmeritsissues.Thesummary judgment/adjudication motion wil laddresslegaldeficiencieswithcertainof plaintiff sclaims(suchastortsnotavailableunderCalifornialaworastowhich monetarydamagesarenotanavailableremedy),aswellaswhethertheFirstAmendmentm inisterial exception compelssummaryadjudicationof someorall of plaintiffsclaims.

It wouldbeappropriatefortheCourttohearthismotion beforethebench trialonequitableestoppel .Defendants,motionforsummary judgment oradjudication wou ld ,if granted dispo seofall orpartof theactionentirely butevenif itisdenieditmaynarrowandfocusthescopeof issuesforbothatrial on theequitableestoppel issueandanytrialon themerits.

C .TheCourtShouldHoldASeparateBenchTr ialOnTheEqu itableEstoppelIssue,A sItHasA lreadyRu ledItW illDo

Followingitsrulingson these motions,theCourtshouldholdabench trialontheissueofequitableestoppel .TheCourthasalreadyruled byorderof January13 2012 thatatrialontheequitableestoppelissueanddefendants statuteof limitationsdefensewillbetotheCourt,andwillprecedeany jurytrialorbench trialonthemeritsof thematter.TheCourthasalsoruled ,byorderof March21 2013 thatplaintiffsthirdcauseof action(forallegeddeprivationof libertyundertheCaliforniaConstitution)andseventhcause of action(forallegedviolationsof BusinessandProfessionsCod e17200)wil lbeseveredandtriedtotheCourt,not ajury .

Plaintiff hasnowsubmittedastatuscon ferencestatementaskingtheCourttoreverseitspriorrulings,hasdismissedherseventh(butnot herthird)causeof action,andasksthattheequ itableestoppelissuebetriedbeforea(presumablyadvisory jury)simultaneouslywitha jurytrialon themerits.ThereisabsolutelynobasisfortheCourttoreverseitspriorrulings,andtheCourtshouldholdatrialon theiss ueof equ itableestoppel(andonplaintiffsThirdCauseof162450. 3

DEFENDANTS'STATEM ENTIN ADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCE


5/14

CDrf i

ijj

123456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

endallBril lKliegerLLP100SantaMon icaBlvd .

ite1725s Angeles.CA90067

Action)beforeany jurytrialinthematter .First astheCourtiswellawareandotenemph asizestolitigants equitableissuesaregenerallytriedfirsttoaCourt astheymust beresolvedbytheCourtbeforeany juryreachesitsdecision.SeeRichardv .Degen&Brody Inc. 181Cal .App.2d289 ,295(196 0)(whenanactioninvolvesbothlegalandequitableissues,theequitableissues,ordinarily aretriedfirst forthismayobviatethenecessityforasubsequenttrialof thelegalissues)(quoting29Cal . Jur.2d9 p.496)(disapprovedonothergroundsinKendallv .ErnestPestana Inc.,40Cal .3d488,498(1985)).

Second thereisnopracticalreasontoho ldthemeritsandequitableestoppeltrialssimultaneously,sincetheissueof equitableestoppelis(a)lim itedand(b)raisesfactualandlegalissuesquitedistinct andapart fromthesubstantiveclaimsalleged.Unliketollingdoctrines whichare concernedwiththepoint atwhichthelimitationsperiodbeginstorunandwiththecircumstancesinwhich therunningof thelimitationsperiodmaybesuspended, equitableestoppel comesintoplayonlyaterthelimitationsperiodhasrunandaddresses.. .thecircumstancesinwhichapartywil lbeestoppedfrom assertingthestatuteof limitationsasadefensetoanadm ittedlyuntimelyactionbecause hisconducthasinducedanotherintoforbearingsuitwithin theapplicablelimitationsperiod. Lantzyv .CentexHomes,31Cal .4th363 ,383(2003)(emph asisadded internalquotationsom itted);seePeregrineFunding Inc.v .SheppardMullinRichter&HamptonLLP 133Cal .App.4th658,686(2005).

Accordingly thefocusof theequitableestoppeltrialwil lnotberesolvingtheunderlyingmeritsof theactionrather,itwillbeuponwhetherornot defend antsmadeanythreats,orengagedinanyharassment uponwhich theplaintiff reasonablyrelied thatpreventedherfromfilingsuitin theperiodbetweenwhenshelettheChu rchof Scientology,in2004 ,andheractionsbetween2004andthedateshefiledsuit in2009 .These issuesdonotrequireextensiveexaminationof multiplewitnessesordaysupon daysof trialtime astheplaintiff suggests.Rather thesignificantfactualissuebeforetheCourt ontheissueof equitableestopp el theallegedthreatsmadebydefendantsandtheallegedreasonablenessof theplaintiffsdelay,canberesolvedin arelativelybrief periodof time .Indeed evenin herowntrialestimate plaintiffscounselallocatesatotalof19hourstotheissuesrelevanttotheequitableestoppelissuethePlaintiffs162450.1 4

DEFENDANTS,STATEM ENTIN ADVANCEOFSTATU SCONFERENCE


6/14

r f i

ijjendallBril lKliegerLLP100 SantaMonicaBld.ite1725s Ange les CA 90067

1

2

345

6789

10111213141516171819202 1222324252627

28

departurefrom theSeaOrganization her fearsoverfilingalawsuit, andthe eventsleadinguptothefilingof Plaintiff slawsuit. PL'sStatusConferenceSt. Ex .Aat4. Sinceher fearsoverfilingalawsuit aretheon lyfactualissuesrelevanttotheequitableestoppelissue thereisnoneedforalongerbench trial .

Moreover theevidentiaryscopeof abench trialon equitableestoppelmaybelimitedfurtherstil lbythepre-trialmotionpracticediscussedabove.

D .TheBenchT rialShou ldBeScheduledFor TenCourtDays,NoEarlier ThanAugust2014

Although thebenchtrialontheissueof equitableestoppelshould notrequiremorethan10court daysof trialtime thereisconsiderableworkthatmustbedonebeforethattrialcommences.Thisistruebothintermsof themotion practicediscussedabove,andbecauseof theneedforfurtherdiscoveryparticularlygivenarecent revelation thattheplaintiff mayhavedestroyedcriticalevidence.

Several daysago ,on herFacebookpage,theplaintiff announced thatshehasdeleted fivefigures of emailfromhercompu ter.SeeExhibitAhereto.Whiledefendantshavenomeansofknowing asof yet whatmaterialplaintiff hasdeleted thedeletedemailsarelikelytohaveconcernedherbeliefsandactivitiesintheperiodbetween2004andherbringingthelawsuit and/orherpost-filingdiscuss ionsof motivationsforbring ingthelawsuit .Assuch theemailsmayhaveincludedcriticallyrelevantmaterialforthecase.

Accordingly beforeanybench trialcanbegin thepartieswillhavetoconsidertheextenttowhich thisdeleted materialisrecoverable andtheextent if any of claimsof spoliationand/orsanctionforthedestructionof relevant evidence.Ataminimum defendantsintendtorequestaforensicexaminationof plaintiffscomputerand/orcomputerstodeterminetheextent of thedeletedmaterialanditspotentialrelevancetothecase.

Inadd ition tothiscritically-importantspoliationissue thereisalsoconsiderableotherdiscoverynecessarybeforea trialcancommenceon theequitableestoppelissue . Suchdiscoverywouldinclude:

162450.1 5DEFENDANTS,STATEM ENTINADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCE


7/14

hj

1

2

345678

9

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728endallBril l

KliegerLLP:00SantaMon icaBlvd .ite1725s Angeles CA 90067

.Document discoveryconcerningtheplaintiffsattitudestowards,andconversationsabout,Scientology,in theperiodbeforeshefiledthislawsuit,includingrecordsrelatingtoherrecordsrelatingtohercomputer whichsheclaims crashed duringtherelevant period;

.Depo sitionsof plaintiffswitnesseswhoprovidedtestimonydeemedadmissiblebytheCourt atthe10/23hearing:ChristieColbranandShanonKimoto;

.Depositionsof personsincontactwith theplaintiff duringtheperiodbetween2004andthedateof thefil ingof hercomplaint,includ ingheremployersandpersonswith whomshecommunicatedconcerningtheChurchof Scientologyandthefilingof herlawsuit ;

.Givenplaintiffsclaimsof psychiatricharm,andthecentralemphasiswhichshehasputuponsuchiss ues ,psychiatricexamof theplaintiff,pursuanttoCod eofC ivilProcedure2032.320 which willrequire(unlessagreedtobyplaintiff)anorderof theCourt ;

.Discoveryconcerningplaintiffsco-workersintheSeaOrg,theScientologyreligiousorder whowitnesse d theeventsplaintiff claimsgaverisetoherinabilitytotimelyfilethelawsuit inordertocomparetheplaintiffsrecollectionswiththo seof others;

.Anexpert depositionof plaintiffsexpert,RobertLevine togetherwithadepositionof anexpert selectedbyDefendantstorebu t Mr .Levinestestimony;

.Depend ingontheCourtsrulingonthemotionsdiscussedin Part III below,add itionalexpert depositionsoncomparativereligionsandthereligiouspracticesoftheChurchof ScientologyandtheSeaOrgascomparedtootherreligionsandreligiousorders.

.Add itionalinterrogatoriestotheplaintiffFinally defendantsanticipatethattherewouldbeconsiderablemotioninliminepractice

beforethebenchtrialontheequitableestoppelissue.

162450. 1DEFENDANTS,STATEM ENT IN ADVAN CEOFSTATU SCONFERENCE


8/14

wO

1

23456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

en da l lBrillKliegerLLP130SantaMon icaBlvd .

ite1725s Angeles, CA 90067

E .Follow ingtheBenchTrialonEqu itableEstoppel,ASeparateBenchandJuryTrial OntheM eritsShouldFollowInDecember 2014

Finally if followingtheCourt'sdeterminationontheequitableestoppeltrial andthedefendants summary judgmentmotion thereremainissuestobedeterminedonameritstrial ,itwouldbeappropriatefortheCourttoholdameritstrialseveralmonthsthereater . Suchameritstrialwouldbeginwithabench trialon plaintiffsthirdcauseof action followedbyajurytrialthereater.Defend antsagreethatameritstrialwillbealengthyundertaking andestimatethatameritstrialwouldtakeon theorderof 60daystotrytocompletion(althoughthelengthof trialmaybenarrowedbytheCourt,srulingon motionsinlimine,which wouldlimittheextentofevidencepresentedbybothsidesastodefendants'religiouspracticesandbeliefs).

G iven thescopeof thepotentialmeritstrial,abrief delayisnecessarybetween theequitableestoppeltrialandthemeritstrialisimportant,both toresolveadd itional evidentiaryissues andbecausethetrialon themeritswil lalsorequireextensive,but distinct,inliminebrie ingconcerningtheextenttowhichandmannerin whichevidenceof defendants'religiouspracticesandbeliefsmaybepu t beforetheCourt orajury.

D iscoverynecessa rybeforeameritstrial bu t notbeforethetrialon theequitableestoppelissue includesthefollowing:

.Expert discoveryoncomparativereligionissuesandotherissuesrelevanttothetrial;.Depositionsof witnessestotheeventsallegedbytheplaintiff ascentraltoherComplaint fromthetimethatsheservedin theSeaOrg ;

.Depositionsof plaintiffshealthcareproviders,andrelevantrecordsfromthoseproviders whicharerelevanttotheplaintiffsdamages.

Accordingly defendantssubm itthat isappropriatetoallowsometimebetweenanytrialon thelimitationsissueand trialon themerits.

F .ConclusionFortheforego ingreasons Defend antsrequestthefollowingschedu le :

162450.1DEFENDANTS,STATEMENTINADVANCEOFSTATUSCONFERENCE


9/14

1

2

3456789

10111213141516171819202 122232425262728

/d.

(a)ahearingonDefendants'motionconcerningFirstAmendmentissuesand thestructureof proo f governinganytrial,inearlyFebruary2014;

(b)ahearingonDefendants'anticipatedsecondsummary judgmentmotion inapproximatelyMay2014;

(c)atrialtotheCourt of theequ itableestoppelissue in approximatelySeptember2014andlastingapproximately5-10courtdays;and

(d)ameritstrialset forapproximatelyJanuary 2015 andlasting30-60courtdays.Dated : November8,2013 KENDALL BRILL & KL IEGERLLP

.By : [I De.vU/ BertH .DeixlerAttorneysforDefendant Churchof ScientologyInternational

Dated : November8,2013 JEFFER,MANGELS,BUTLER&M ITCHELL ,LLP

By :RobertE.MangelsAttorneysforDefendant ReligiousTechnologyCenter

162450.1 8DEFENDANTS'STATEM ENT IN ADVANCEOFSTA TUSCONFERENCE


10/14


11/14


12/14


13/14


14/14

decrescenzo v. scientology: defendant's statement in advance of status conference

Documents